Saturday, March 14, 2020
Whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition known as CAH, and her name from "Jennifer" to "Jeff," under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, VS. JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, Respondent. GR No. 166676, September 12, 2008.
“x x x.
Simply stated, the issue is whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition known as CAH, and her name from "Jennifer" to "Jeff," under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.
The OSG contends that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because while the local civil registrar is an indispensable party in a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, respondent’s petition before the court a quo did not implead the local civil registrar.5 The OSG further contends respondent’s petition is fatally defective since it failed to state that respondent is a bona fide resident of the province where the petition was filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing as mandated under Section 2(b), Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.6 The OSG argues that Rule 108 does not allow change of sex or gender in the birth certificate and respondent’s claimed medical condition known as CAH does not make her a male.7
On the other hand, respondent counters that although the Local Civil Registrar of Pakil, Laguna was not formally named a party in the Petition for Correction of Birth Certificate, nonetheless the Local Civil Registrar was furnished a copy of the Petition, the Order to publish on December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in the course of the proceedings,8 respondent is actually a male person and hence his birth certificate has to be corrected to reflect his true sex/gender,9 change of sex or gender is allowed under Rule 108,10 and respondent substantially complied with the requirements of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.11
Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court provide:
Rule 103
CHANGE OF NAME
Section 1. Venue. – A person desiring to change his name shall present the petition to the Regional Trial Court of the province in which he resides, [or, in the City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court].
Sec. 2. Contents of petition. – A petition for change of name shall be signed and verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and shall set forth:
(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing;
(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought;
(c) The name asked for.
Sec. 3. Order for hearing. – If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as the court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30) days prior to an election nor within four (4) months after the last publication of the notice.
Sec. 4. Hearing. – Any interested person may appear at the hearing and oppose the petition. The Solicitor General or the proper provincial or city fiscal shall appear on behalf of the Government of the Republic.
Sec. 5. Judgment. – Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order that such order has been published as directed and that the allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such name be changed in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
Sec. 6. Service of judgment. – Judgments or orders rendered in connection with this rule shall be furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the court issuing the same is situated, who shall forthwith enter the same in the civil register.
Rule 108
CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES
IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY
Section 1. Who may file petition. – Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
Sec. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. – Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.
Sec. 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
Sec. 4. Notice and publication. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
Sec. 5. Opposition. – The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.
Sec. 6. Expediting proceedings. – The court in which the proceedings is brought may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings.
Sec. 7. Order. – After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned who shall annotate the same in his record.
The OSG argues that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because respondent’s petition did not implead the local civil registrar. Section 3, Rule 108 provides that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceedings. Likewise, the local civil registrar is required to be made a party in a proceeding for the correction of name in the civil registry. He is an indispensable party without whom no final determination of the case can be had.[12] Unless all possible indispensable parties were duly notified of the proceedings, the same shall be considered as falling much too short of the requirements of the rules.13 The corresponding petition should also implead as respondents the civil registrar and all other persons who may have or may claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby.14 Respondent, however, invokes Section 6,[15] Rule 1 of the Rules of Court which states that courts shall construe the Rules liberally to promote their objectives of securing to the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the matters brought before it. We agree that there is substantial compliance with Rule 108 when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil registrar.
The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order.
Together with Article 376[16] of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by Republic Act No. 9048[17] in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register.18
Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.19
The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code:
ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register.
ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:
(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name.
The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Code include even those that occur after birth.20
Respondent undisputedly has CAH. This condition causes the early or "inappropriate" appearance of male characteristics. A person, like respondent, with this condition produces too much androgen, a male hormone. A newborn who has XX chromosomes coupled with CAH usually has a (1) swollen clitoris with the urethral opening at the base, an ambiguous genitalia often appearing more male than female; (2) normal internal structures of the female reproductive tract such as the ovaries, uterus and fallopian tubes; as the child grows older, some features start to appear male, such as deepening of the voice, facial hair, and failure to menstruate at puberty. About 1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with CAH.
CAH is one of many conditions[21] that involve intersex anatomy. During the twentieth century, medicine adopted the term "intersexuality" to apply to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female.[22] The term is now of widespread use. According to Wikipedia, intersexuality "is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An organism with intersex may have biological characteristics of both male and female sexes."
Intersex individuals are treated in different ways by different cultures. In most societies, intersex individuals have been expected to conform to either a male or female gender role.[23] Since the rise of modern medical science in Western societies, some intersex people with ambiguous external genitalia have had their genitalia surgically modified to resemble either male or female genitals.[24] More commonly, an intersex individual is considered as suffering from a "disorder" which is almost always recommended to be treated, whether by surgery and/or by taking lifetime medication in order to mold the individual as neatly as possible into the category of either male or female.
In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. "It has been suggested that there is some middle ground between the sexes, a ‘no-man’s land’ for those individuals who are neither truly ‘male’ nor truly ‘female’."[25] The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification.
In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we determine, based on medical testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the subject’s birth certificate entry is in order.
Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither consistently and categorically female nor consistently and categorically male) composition. Respondent has female (XX) chromosomes. However, respondent’s body system naturally produces high levels of male hormones (androgen). As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic features of a male.
Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.
Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his life to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking lifelong medication,[26] to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in respondent’s development to reveal more fully his male characteristics.
In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately private as one’s sexuality and lifestyle preferences, much less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the male tendency due to CAH. The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a female. Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit the mold of a female, as society commonly currently knows this gender of the human species. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence of evidence that respondent is an "incompetent"[27] and in the absence of evidence to show that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent’s position and his personal judgment of being a male.
In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals with what nature has handed out. In other words, we respect respondent’s congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but respect how respondent deals with his unordinary state and thus help make his life easier, considering the unique circumstances in this case.
As for respondent’s change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow.[28] The trial court’s grant of respondent’s change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering the consequence that respondent’s change of name merely recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent’s change of name. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male.
X x x.”
Radio and TV networks - Franchise by Congress vs. Franchise by Executive agency
See - https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_144109_2003.html
G.R. No. 144109 February 17, 2003
ASSOCIATED COMMUNICATIONS & WIRELESS SERVICES – UNITED BROADCASTING NETWORKS, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, respondent.
"x x x.
The petition is devoid of merit.
We shall discuss together the first three assigned errors as they are interrelated.
Petitioner stresses that Act. No. 3846 covers only the operation of radio and not television stations as Section 1 of the said law does not mention television stations in its coverage, viz:
"Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines…"
Petitioner observes that quite understandably, television stations were not included in Act No. 3846 because the law was enacted in 1931 when there was yet no television station in the Philippines. Following the rule in statutory construction that what is not included in the law is deemed excluded, petitioner avers that television stations are not covered by Act No. 3846. Petitioner notes that in fact, the NTC previously issued to it a temporary permit dated July 7, 1995 to operate Channel 25 from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997 without requiring a congressional franchise. Likewise, in 1996, the NTC issued to it a permit to increase its television operating power and to purchase a radio transmitter/transceiver for use in its television broadcasting, again without requiring a congressional franchise. Petitioner thus argues that, contrary to the January 19, 1999 decision of the NTC, its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate television Channel 25 does not require a congressional franchise.
In upholding the NTC decision, the Court of Appeals held that a congressional franchise is required for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations as this requirement under Act No. 3846 was not expressly repealed by P.D. No. 576-A nor E.O. No. 546. Citing Berces, Sr. v. Guingona,22 it ruled that without an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless there is an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy in the language of the new and old laws, which petitioner was not able to show.23
The appellate court correctly ruled that a congressional franchise is necessary for petitioner to operate television Channel 25. Even assuming that Act No. 3846 applies only to radio stations and not to television stations as petitioner adamantly insists, the subsequent P.D. No. 576-A clearly shows in Section 1 that a franchise is required to operate radio as well as television stations, viz:
"Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless it has sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year, including purchase of equipment." (emphasis supplied)
As pointed out in DOJ Opinion No. 98, there is nothing in P.D. No. 576-A that reveals any intention to do away with the requirement of a franchise for the operation of radio and television stations. Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A merely identifies the regulatory agencies from whom authorizations, in addition to the required congressional franchise, must be secured after December 31, 1981, viz:
"Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on December 31, 1981. Thereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or person, no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications or their successors who have the right and authority to assign to qualified parties frequencies, channels or other means of identifying broadcasting system . . ." (emphasis supplied)
To understand why it was necessary to identify these agencies, we turn a heedful eye on the laws regarding authorizations for the operation of radio and television stations that preceded P.D. No. 576-A.
Act No. 3846 of 1931 provides, viz:
"Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines:
x x x x x x x x x
Sec. 1-A. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall possess or own transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitter-receiver), without registering the same with the Secretary of Public Works and Communications . . . and no person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct or manufacture, or purchase radio transmitters or transceivers without a permit issued by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
x x x x x x x x x
Sec. 3. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications is hereby empowered to regulate the construction or manufacture, possession, control, sale and transfer of radio transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitter-receiver) and the establishment, use, the operation of all radio stations and of all forms of radio communications and transmissions within the Philippines. In addition to the above, he shall have the following specific powers and duties:
x x x x x x x x x
(c) He shall assign call letter and assign frequencies for each station licensed by him and for each station established by virtue of a franchise granted by the Congress of the Philippines and specify the stations to which each of such frequencies may be used;. . ."
Shortly after the declaration of Martial Law, then President Marcos issued P.D. No. 1 dated September 24, 1972, through which the Integrated Reorganization Plan for the executive branch was adopted. Under the Plan, the Public Service Commission was abolished and its functions transferred to special regulatory boards, among which was the Board of Communications with the following functions:
"5a. Issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of communications utilities and services, radio communications systems . . ., radio and television broadcasting systems and other similar public utilities;
x x x x x x x x x
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for . . . radio and television broadcasting systems including amateur radio stations."
With the creation of the Board of Communications under the Plan, it was no longer sufficient to secure authorization from the Secretary of Public Works and Communications as provided in Act No. 3846. The Board’s authorization was also necessary. Thus, P.D. No. 576-A provides in Section 6 that radio and television station operators must secure authorization from both the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the Board of Communications.
Dispensing with the requirement of a congressional franchise is not in line with the declared purposes of P.D. No. 576-A, viz:
"WHEREAS, it has been observed that some public utilities, especially radio and television stations, have a tendency toward monopoly in ownership and operation to such an extent that a region or section of the country may be covered by any number of such broadcast stations, all or most of which are owned, operated or managed by one person or corporation;
x x x x x x x x x
WHEREAS, on account of the limited number of frequencies available for broadcasting in the Philippines, it is necessary to regulate the ownership and operation of radio and television stations and provide measures that would enhance quality and viability in broadcasting and help serve the public interests; . . ."
A textual interpretation of Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A yields the same interpretation that after December 31, 1981, a franchise is still necessary to operate radio and television stations. Were it the intention of the law to do away with the requirement of a franchise after said date, then the phrase "(t)hereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or person (emphasis supplied)" would not have been necessary because the first sentence of Section 6 already states that "(a)ll franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on December 31, 1981." It is therefore already understood that these forms of authority have no more force and effect after December 31, 1981. If the intention were to do away with the franchise requirement, Section 6 would have simply laid down after the first sentence the requirements to operate radio and television stations after December 31, 1981, i.e., "no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications." Instead, however, the phrase "irrespective of any franchise,…" was inserted to emphasize that a franchise or any other form of authorization from any office, agency or person does not suffice to operate radio and television stations because the authorizations of both the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications are required as well. This interpretation adheres to the rule in statutory construction that words in a statute should not be construed as surplusage if a reasonable construction which will give them some force and meaning is possible.24
Contrary to the opinion of the Secretary of Justice in DOJ Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991, the appellate court was correct in ruling that E.O. No. 546 which came after P.D. No. 576-A did not dispense with the requirement of a congressional franchise. It merely abolished the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications Control Bureau under the Reorganization Plan and transferred their functions to the NTC,25 including the power to issue Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) and grant permits for the use of frequencies, viz:
"Sec. 15. a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of communication utilities and services, radio communications systems, wire or wireless telephone or telegraph system, radio and television broadcasting system and other similar public utilities;
x x x x x x x x x
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for wireless telephone and telegraph systems and radio communication systems including amateur radio stations and radio and television broadcasting systems; . . . "
E.O. No. 546 defines the regulatory and technical aspect of the legal process preparatory to the full exercise of the privilege to operate radio and television stations, which is different from the grant of a franchise from Congress, viz:
"The statutory functions of NTC may then be given effect as Congress’ prerogative to grant franchises under Act No. 3846 is upheld for they are distinct forms of authority. The former covers matters dealing mostly with the technical side of radio or television broadcasting, while the latter involves the exercise by the legislature of an exclusive power resulting in a franchise or a grant under authority of government, conferring a special right to do an act or series of acts of public concern (37 C.J.S., secs. 1, 14, pp. 144, 157).
In fine, there being no clear showing that the laws here involved cannot stand together, the presumption is against inconsistency or repugnance, hence, against implied repeal of the earlier law by the later statute (Agujetas v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 17, 1996)."26
As we held in Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,27 a franchise is distinguished from a CPC in that the former is a grant or privilege from the sovereign power, while the latter is a form of regulation through the administrative agencies, viz:
"A franchise started out as a "royal privilege or (a) branch of the King’s prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject." This definition was given by Finch, adopted by Blackstone, and accepted by every authority since (State v. Twin Village Water Co., 98 Me 214, 56 A 763 [1903]). Today, a franchise, being merely a privilege emanating from the sovereign power of the state and owing its existence to a grant, is subject to regulation by the state itself by virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies."28
Even prior to E.O. No. 546, the NTC’s precursor, i.e., the Board of Communications, already had the function of issuing CPC under the Integrated Reorganization Plan. The CPC was required by the Board at the same time that P.D. No. 576-A required a franchise to operate radio and television stations. The function of the NTC to issue CPC under E.O. No. 546 is thus nothing new and exists alongside the requirement of a congressional franchise under P.D. No. 576-A. There is no conflict between E.O. No. 546 and P.D. No 576-A; Section 15 of the former does not dispense with the franchise requirement in the latter. We adhere to the cardinal rule in statutory construction that statutes in pare materia, although in apparent conflict, or containing apparent inconsistencies, should, as far as reasonably possible, be construed in harmony with each other, so as to give force and effect to each.29 The ruling of this Court in Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,30 buttresses the interpretation that the requirement of a congressional franchise for the operation of radio and television stations exists alongside the requirement of a CPC. In that case, we held that under E.O. No. 546, the regulation of radio communications is a function assigned to and performed by the NTC and at the same time recognized the requirement of a congressional franchise for the operation of a radio station under Act No. 3846. We did not interpret E.O. No. 546 to have repealed the congressional franchise requirement under Act No. 3846 as these two laws are not inconsistent and can both be given effect. Likewise, in Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,31 we recognized the necessity of both a congressional franchise under Act No. 3846 and a CPC under E.O. No. 546 to operate a radio communications system.
In buttressing its position that a congressional franchise is not required to operate its television station, petitioner banks on DOJ Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991 which states that under E.O. No. 546, the NTC may issue a permit or authorization for the operation of radio and television broadcasting systems without a prior franchise issued by Congress. Petitioner argues that the opinion is binding and conclusive upon the NTC as the NTC itself requested the advisory from the Secretary of Justice who is the legal adviser of government. Petitioner claims that it was precisely because of the above DOJ Opinion No. 98 that the NTC did not previously require a congressional franchise in all of its applications for permits with the NTC.
Petitioner, however, cannot rely on DOJ Opinion No. 98 as this opinion is merely persuasive and not necessarily controlling.32 As shown above, the opinion is erroneous insofar as it holds that E.O. No. 546 dispenses with the requirement of a congressional franchise to operate radio and television stations. The case of Albano v. Reyes33 cited in the DOJ opinion, which allegedly makes it binding upon the NTC, does not lend support to petitioner’s cause. In that case, we held, viz:
"Franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. Thus, the law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. (See E.O. Nos. 172 and 202)
That the Constitution provides in Art. XII, Sec. 11 that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress does not necessarily imply, as petitioner posits, that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization. Our statute books are replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for certain classes of public utilities. (footnote omitted)"34
Our ruling in Albano that a congressional franchise is not required before "each and every public utility may operate" should be viewed in its proper light. Where there is a law such as P.D. No. 576-A which requires a franchise for the operation of radio and television stations, that law must be followed until subsequently repealed. As we have earlier shown, however, there is nothing in the subsequent E.O. No. 546 which evinces an intent to dispense with the franchise requirement. In contradistinction with the case at bar, the law applicable in Albano, i.e., E.O. No. 30, did not require a franchise for the Philippine Ports Authority to take over, manage and operate the Manila International Port Complex and undertake the providing of cargo handling and port related services thereat. Similarly, in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, et al.,35 we ruled that a legislative franchise is not necessary for the operation of domestic air transport because "there is nothing in the law nor in the Constitution which indicates that a legislative franchise is an indispensable requirement for an entity to operate as a domestic air transport operator."36 Thus, while it is correct to say that specified agencies in the Executive Branch have the power to issue authorization for certain classes of public utilities, this does not mean that the authorization or CPC issued by the NTC dispenses with the requirement of a franchise as this is clearly required under P.D. No. 576-A.
Petitioner contends that the NTC erroneously denied its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recalled its Channel 25 frequency based on the May 3, 1994 MOU that requires a congressional franchise for the operation of television broadcast stations.1a\^/phi1.net The MOU is not an act of Congress and thus cannot amend Act No. 3846 which requires a congressional franchise for the operation of radio stations alone, and not television stations.
We find no merit in petitioner’s contention. As we have shown, even assuming that Act No. 3846 requires only radio stations to secure a congressional franchise for its operation, P.D. No. 576-A was subsequently issued in 1974, which clearly requires a franchise for both radio and television stations. Thus, the 1994 MOU did not amend any law, but merely clarified the existing law that requires a franchise.
That the legislative intent is to continue requiring a franchise for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations is clear from the franchises granted by Congress after the effectivity of E.O. No. 546 in 1979 for the operation of radio and television stations. Among these are: (1) R.A. No. 9131 dated April 24, 2001, entitled "An Act Granting the Iddes Broadcast Group, Inc., a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and Maintain Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines;" (2) R.A. No. 9148 dated July 31, 2001, entitled "An Act Granting the Hypersonic Broadcasting Center, Inc., a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and Maintain Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines;" and (3) R.A. No. 7678 dated February 17, 1994, entitled "An Act Granting the Digital Telecommunication Philippines, Incorporated, a Franchise to Install, Operate and Maintain Telecommunications Systems Throughout the Philippines." All three franchises require the grantees to secure a CPCN/license/permit to construct and operate their stations/systems. Likewise, the Tax Reform Act of 1997 provides in Section 119 for tax on franchise of radio and/or television broadcasting companies, viz:
"Sec. 119. Tax on Franchises. – Any provision of general or special law to the contrary notwithstanding, there shall be levied, assessed and collected in respect to all franchises on radio and/or television broadcasting companies whose annual gross receipts of the preceding year does not exceed Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000), subject to Section 236 of this Code, a tax of three percent (3%) and on electric, gas and water utilities, a tax of two percent (2%) on the gross receipts derived from the business covered by the law granting the franchise. . . " (emphasis supplied)
Undeniably, petitioner is aware that a congressional franchise is necessary to operate its television station Channel 25 as shown by its actuations. Shortly before the December 31, 1994 deadline set in the MOU, petitioner filed an application for a franchise with Congress. It was not, however, acted upon in the 9th Congress for petitioner’s failure to submit the necessary supporting documents; petitioner failed to re-file the application in the following Congress. Petitioner also filed an application for a franchise with Congress on September 2, 1998, before the November 30, 1998 deadline under Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-98.37
We now come to the fourth assigned error. Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the recall of frequency Channel 25 previously assigned to it and the cancellation of its permit to operate which was already approved in January 1998. It claims that these acts of the NTC were unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory considering that the NTC previously issued petitioner a temporary permit without requiring a congressional franchise.
On February 26, 1998, the NTC issued a show cause order to petitioner with the following decretal portion:
"IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this order why their assigned frequency, more specifically Channel 25 in the UHF Band, should not be recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by Section 1, Act No. 3846, as amended.
Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating DWQH-TV, unless subsequently authorized by the Commission."38
The order was supposedly based on a letter of the NTC dated November 17, 1997 informing petitioner that its application for renewal of temporary permits of its seven radio stations were being held in abeyance pending submission of its new congressional franchise. Petitioner was directed to submit the franchise within thirty days from expiration of its temporary permits to be renewed and informed that its failure to do so might constitute denial of its application.
Petitioner is correct that the November 17, 1997 letter referred only to its radio stations and not to its television Channel 25. Thus, it could not serve as basis for the February 26, 1998 show cause order which referred solely to its television Channel 25. Besides, petitioner claims that it did not receive the letter. Be that as it may, the NTC’s February 26, 1998 order for petitioner to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 was not unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory. The 1994 MOU states in unmistakable terms that petitioner’s temporary permit to operate Channel 25 would be valid for only two years, i.e., from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997. During these two years, petitioner was supposed to have secured a congressional franchise, otherwise "the NTC shall not extend or renew its permit or authorization to operate any further."39 Apparently, petitioner did not submit a congressional franchise to the NTC in applying for renewal of this temporary permit on May 14, 1997. The NTC’s approval of petitioner’s application to renew its temporary permit in January 1998 was thus erroneous because under the 1994 MOU, the NTC could not renew petitioner’s temporary permit to operate Channel 25 without a congressional franchise. In the absence of a renewed temporary permit, the NTC was correct in ordering petitioner to cease and desist from operating Channel 25, regardless of whether or not petitioner received the November 17, 1997 letter. The NTC’s erroneous approval of petitioner’s application in January 1998 did not estop the NTC from ordering petitioner on February 26, 1998 to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 for failure to comply with the franchise requirement as estoppel does not work against the government.40
Likewise, the NTC’s denial of petitioner’s application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recall of its Channel 25 frequency in its January 13, 1999 decision were not unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory so as to offend petitioner’s right to due process. In Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,41 the Court ruled that although a particular ground for suspending operations of the broadcasting company was not reflected in the show cause order, the NTC could nevertheless raise said ground if any basis therefore was gleaned during the administrative proceedings. In the instant case, the lack of congressional franchise as ground for denial of petitioner’s application for renewal of temporary permit and recall of its Channel 25 frequency was raised not only during the administrative proceedings against it, but was even stated in the February 26, 1998 show cause order, viz:
"IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this order why their assigned frequency, more specifically Channel 25 in the UHF Band, should not be recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by Section 1, Act No. 3846, as amended.
Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating DWQH-TV, unless subsequently authorized by the Commission." 42 (emphasis supplied)
In Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., et al.,43 we held that the requirements of due process in administrative proceedings laid down by this Court in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations44 should be satisfied before a broadcast station may be closed or its operations curtailed. We enumerated these requirements, viz:
". . . (1) the right to a hearing which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have something to support itself; (4) the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) the board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decisions in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered."45
Petitioner had the opportunity to present its case and submit evidence on why its assigned frequency Channel 25 should not be recalled and its application for renewal denied. Petitioner filed its Answer to the show cause order on March 17, 1998.46 A hearing was held on April 22, 1998 wherein petitioner presented its evidence in compliance with the show cause order. Based on the NTC’s findings that petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of a congressional franchise, the NTC denied its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recalled its assigned Channel 25 frequency. The requirements of due process in Ang Tibay were satisfied, thus petitioner cannot say that the NTC’s actions were unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory.
Finally, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that Administrative Case No. 98-009, the administrative proceeding against it for failure to secure a congressional franchise to operate its television Channel 25, has been rendered moot and academic by the adoption and promulgation of NTC Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-98 dated August 17, 1998 which took effect on November 15, 1998. The Memorandum Circular states, viz:
"In compliance with the MOU and in order to clear the ambiguity surrounding the operation of broadcast operators who were not able to have their legislative franchise approved during the last Congress, the following guidelines are hereby issued:
1. Existing broadcast operators who were not able to secure a legislative franchise up to this date (August 17, 1998) are given up to December 31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise bill approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than November 30th of this year . . ."
Petitioner avers that the NTC erroneously held that this Memorandum Circular is not applicable to it because the words of the circular are clear that it covers "existing broadcasting operators" including petitioner. In compliance with the Memorandum Circular, petitioner filed House Bill No. 32 on September 2, 1998, well within the November 30, 1998 deadline. Thus, petitioner argues that the NTC erred in denying its application for renewal of permit to operate Channel 25 and recalling its assigned Channel 25 frequency on January 13, 1999, long before the Memorandum Circular’s December 31, 1999 deadline to secure a congressional franchise. Petitioner posits that the NTC’s premature and arbitrary promulgation of its January 13, 1999 decision "slammed the door for the petitioner to secure its legislative franchise. The pending application for legislative franchise of petitioner was effectively struck out by said NTC decision."47
Whether or not the benefits of the Memorandum Circular extend to petitioner, the fact is, as correctly pointed out by the appellate court, petitioner failed to secure a legislative franchise by December 31, 1999. Consequently, the NTC’s recall of petitioner’s assigned frequency Channel 25 and denial of its application for renewal of its permit to operate the said television channel were proper as the Memorandum Circular provides, viz:
"1. Existing broadcast operators who are not able to secure a legislative franchise up to this date (August 17, 1998) are given up to December 31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than November 30th of this year . . .
x x x x x x x x x
3. In the event the permittee will not be able to have its franchise bill approved within the prescribed period, the NTC will no longer renew/extend its temporary permit and the Commission shall initiate the recall of its assigned frequency provided that due process of law is observed.
4. Henceforth, no application/petition for Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to establish, maintain and operate a broadcast station in the broadcast service shall be accepted for filing without showing that the applicant has an approved legislative franchise."(emphasis supplied)
Petitioner’s argument is flawed when it states that the January 13, 1999 decision of the NTC "slammed the door" on its application for a congressional franchise as the process of securing a congressional franchise is separate and distinct from the process of applying for renewal of a temporary permit with the NTC. The latter is not a prerequisite to the former. In fact, in the normal course of securing authorizations to operate a television and radio station, the application for a CPC with the NTC comes after securing a franchise from Congress.48 The CPC is not a condition for the grant of a congressional franchise.49
The Court is not unmindful that there is a trend towards delegating the legislative power to authorize the operation of certain public utilities to administrative agencies and dispensing with the requirement of a congressional franchise as in the Albano case which involved the provision of cargo handling and port related services at the Manila International Port Complex and the PAL case involving the operation of domestic air transport. The rationale for this trend was explained in the PAL case, viz:
". . . With the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency towards the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and towards the approval of the practice by the courts.1awphi1.nét (Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065, June 26, 1940, 70 Phil 221.) It is generally recognized that a franchise may be derived indirectly from the state through a duly designated agency, and to this extent, the power to grant franchises has frequently been delegated, even to agencies other than those of a legislative nature. (Dyer vs. Tuskaloosa Bridge Co., 2 Port. 296, 27 Am. D. 655; Christian-Todd Tel. Co. vs. Commonwealth, 161 S.W. 543, 156 Ky. 557, 37 C.J.S. 158) In pursuance of this, it has been held that privileges conferred by grant by local authorities as agents for the state constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by an act of the Legislature. (Superior Water, Light and Power Co. vs. City of Superior, 181 N.W. 113, 174 Wis. 257, affirmed 183 N.W. 254, 37 C.J.S. 158.)
The trend of modern legislation is to vest the Public Service Commissioner with the power to regulate and control the operation of public services under reasonable rules and regulations, and as a general rule, courts will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion when it is just and reasonable and founded upon a legal right."50 1a\^/phi1.net
The criticism against the requirement of a congressional franchise is incisively expressed by a public utilities lawyer, viz:
"As will be noted, a legislative franchise is required to install and operate a radio station before an applicant can apply for a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate a radio station based in any part of the country. Under Act No. 3846 of 1929, Sec. 1, it was provided that no one may install and operate a radio station ‘without having first obtained a franchise therefore from the Congress of the Philippines.’ Since then, this has been strictly followed. And this holds true with respect to application for electric, telephone and many other telecommunications services. Before, even mere application for authority to operate an ice plant must have prior congressional franchise. But this was not strictly followed until ice plant operations were eventually deregulated. Right now, the both houses of the legislature are saddled with House Bill Nos. etc. for the grant of legislative franchise to operate this and that public utility services in various places in the Philippines. We hear during sessions in both houses the time wasted on reports and considerations of these house bills for grant of franchises. The legislature is empowered and has created respective regulatory bodies with requisite expertise to handle franchising and regulation of such types of public utility services, why not just entrust all these functions to them?
What exactly is the reason or rationale for imposing a prior congressional franchise? There seems to be no valid reason for it except to impose added burden and expenses on the part of the applicant. The justification appears to be simply because this was required in the past so it is now. We are reminded of the forceful denunciation of Justice Holmes of a stubborn adherence to an anachronistic rule of law:
‘It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past. (The Path of the Law, Collected Legal Papers [1920] 210, 212 quoted from The Justice Holmes Reader, Julius N. Marke, 1955 ed., p. 278.)’"51
The call to dispense with the requisite legislative franchise must, however, be addressed to Congress as the lawmaker of the land for the Court’s function is to interpret and not to rewrite the law. As long as the law remains unchanged, the requirement of a franchise to operate a television station must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals’ January 13, 2000 decision and February 21, 2000 resolution are AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
x x x."
The petition is devoid of merit.
We shall discuss together the first three assigned errors as they are interrelated.
Petitioner stresses that Act. No. 3846 covers only the operation of radio and not television stations as Section 1 of the said law does not mention television stations in its coverage, viz:
"Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines…"
Petitioner observes that quite understandably, television stations were not included in Act No. 3846 because the law was enacted in 1931 when there was yet no television station in the Philippines. Following the rule in statutory construction that what is not included in the law is deemed excluded, petitioner avers that television stations are not covered by Act No. 3846. Petitioner notes that in fact, the NTC previously issued to it a temporary permit dated July 7, 1995 to operate Channel 25 from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997 without requiring a congressional franchise. Likewise, in 1996, the NTC issued to it a permit to increase its television operating power and to purchase a radio transmitter/transceiver for use in its television broadcasting, again without requiring a congressional franchise. Petitioner thus argues that, contrary to the January 19, 1999 decision of the NTC, its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate television Channel 25 does not require a congressional franchise.
In upholding the NTC decision, the Court of Appeals held that a congressional franchise is required for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations as this requirement under Act No. 3846 was not expressly repealed by P.D. No. 576-A nor E.O. No. 546. Citing Berces, Sr. v. Guingona,22 it ruled that without an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless there is an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy in the language of the new and old laws, which petitioner was not able to show.23
The appellate court correctly ruled that a congressional franchise is necessary for petitioner to operate television Channel 25. Even assuming that Act No. 3846 applies only to radio stations and not to television stations as petitioner adamantly insists, the subsequent P.D. No. 576-A clearly shows in Section 1 that a franchise is required to operate radio as well as television stations, viz:
"Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless it has sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year, including purchase of equipment." (emphasis supplied)
As pointed out in DOJ Opinion No. 98, there is nothing in P.D. No. 576-A that reveals any intention to do away with the requirement of a franchise for the operation of radio and television stations. Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A merely identifies the regulatory agencies from whom authorizations, in addition to the required congressional franchise, must be secured after December 31, 1981, viz:
"Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on December 31, 1981. Thereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or person, no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications or their successors who have the right and authority to assign to qualified parties frequencies, channels or other means of identifying broadcasting system . . ." (emphasis supplied)
To understand why it was necessary to identify these agencies, we turn a heedful eye on the laws regarding authorizations for the operation of radio and television stations that preceded P.D. No. 576-A.
Act No. 3846 of 1931 provides, viz:
"Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines:
x x x x x x x x x
Sec. 1-A. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall possess or own transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitter-receiver), without registering the same with the Secretary of Public Works and Communications . . . and no person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct or manufacture, or purchase radio transmitters or transceivers without a permit issued by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
x x x x x x x x x
Sec. 3. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications is hereby empowered to regulate the construction or manufacture, possession, control, sale and transfer of radio transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitter-receiver) and the establishment, use, the operation of all radio stations and of all forms of radio communications and transmissions within the Philippines. In addition to the above, he shall have the following specific powers and duties:
x x x x x x x x x
(c) He shall assign call letter and assign frequencies for each station licensed by him and for each station established by virtue of a franchise granted by the Congress of the Philippines and specify the stations to which each of such frequencies may be used;. . ."
Shortly after the declaration of Martial Law, then President Marcos issued P.D. No. 1 dated September 24, 1972, through which the Integrated Reorganization Plan for the executive branch was adopted. Under the Plan, the Public Service Commission was abolished and its functions transferred to special regulatory boards, among which was the Board of Communications with the following functions:
"5a. Issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of communications utilities and services, radio communications systems . . ., radio and television broadcasting systems and other similar public utilities;
x x x x x x x x x
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for . . . radio and television broadcasting systems including amateur radio stations."
With the creation of the Board of Communications under the Plan, it was no longer sufficient to secure authorization from the Secretary of Public Works and Communications as provided in Act No. 3846. The Board’s authorization was also necessary. Thus, P.D. No. 576-A provides in Section 6 that radio and television station operators must secure authorization from both the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the Board of Communications.
Dispensing with the requirement of a congressional franchise is not in line with the declared purposes of P.D. No. 576-A, viz:
"WHEREAS, it has been observed that some public utilities, especially radio and television stations, have a tendency toward monopoly in ownership and operation to such an extent that a region or section of the country may be covered by any number of such broadcast stations, all or most of which are owned, operated or managed by one person or corporation;
x x x x x x x x x
WHEREAS, on account of the limited number of frequencies available for broadcasting in the Philippines, it is necessary to regulate the ownership and operation of radio and television stations and provide measures that would enhance quality and viability in broadcasting and help serve the public interests; . . ."
A textual interpretation of Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A yields the same interpretation that after December 31, 1981, a franchise is still necessary to operate radio and television stations. Were it the intention of the law to do away with the requirement of a franchise after said date, then the phrase "(t)hereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or person (emphasis supplied)" would not have been necessary because the first sentence of Section 6 already states that "(a)ll franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on December 31, 1981." It is therefore already understood that these forms of authority have no more force and effect after December 31, 1981. If the intention were to do away with the franchise requirement, Section 6 would have simply laid down after the first sentence the requirements to operate radio and television stations after December 31, 1981, i.e., "no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications." Instead, however, the phrase "irrespective of any franchise,…" was inserted to emphasize that a franchise or any other form of authorization from any office, agency or person does not suffice to operate radio and television stations because the authorizations of both the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications are required as well. This interpretation adheres to the rule in statutory construction that words in a statute should not be construed as surplusage if a reasonable construction which will give them some force and meaning is possible.24
Contrary to the opinion of the Secretary of Justice in DOJ Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991, the appellate court was correct in ruling that E.O. No. 546 which came after P.D. No. 576-A did not dispense with the requirement of a congressional franchise. It merely abolished the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications Control Bureau under the Reorganization Plan and transferred their functions to the NTC,25 including the power to issue Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) and grant permits for the use of frequencies, viz:
"Sec. 15. a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of communication utilities and services, radio communications systems, wire or wireless telephone or telegraph system, radio and television broadcasting system and other similar public utilities;
x x x x x x x x x
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for wireless telephone and telegraph systems and radio communication systems including amateur radio stations and radio and television broadcasting systems; . . . "
E.O. No. 546 defines the regulatory and technical aspect of the legal process preparatory to the full exercise of the privilege to operate radio and television stations, which is different from the grant of a franchise from Congress, viz:
"The statutory functions of NTC may then be given effect as Congress’ prerogative to grant franchises under Act No. 3846 is upheld for they are distinct forms of authority. The former covers matters dealing mostly with the technical side of radio or television broadcasting, while the latter involves the exercise by the legislature of an exclusive power resulting in a franchise or a grant under authority of government, conferring a special right to do an act or series of acts of public concern (37 C.J.S., secs. 1, 14, pp. 144, 157).
In fine, there being no clear showing that the laws here involved cannot stand together, the presumption is against inconsistency or repugnance, hence, against implied repeal of the earlier law by the later statute (Agujetas v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 17, 1996)."26
As we held in Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,27 a franchise is distinguished from a CPC in that the former is a grant or privilege from the sovereign power, while the latter is a form of regulation through the administrative agencies, viz:
"A franchise started out as a "royal privilege or (a) branch of the King’s prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject." This definition was given by Finch, adopted by Blackstone, and accepted by every authority since (State v. Twin Village Water Co., 98 Me 214, 56 A 763 [1903]). Today, a franchise, being merely a privilege emanating from the sovereign power of the state and owing its existence to a grant, is subject to regulation by the state itself by virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies."28
Even prior to E.O. No. 546, the NTC’s precursor, i.e., the Board of Communications, already had the function of issuing CPC under the Integrated Reorganization Plan. The CPC was required by the Board at the same time that P.D. No. 576-A required a franchise to operate radio and television stations. The function of the NTC to issue CPC under E.O. No. 546 is thus nothing new and exists alongside the requirement of a congressional franchise under P.D. No. 576-A. There is no conflict between E.O. No. 546 and P.D. No 576-A; Section 15 of the former does not dispense with the franchise requirement in the latter. We adhere to the cardinal rule in statutory construction that statutes in pare materia, although in apparent conflict, or containing apparent inconsistencies, should, as far as reasonably possible, be construed in harmony with each other, so as to give force and effect to each.29 The ruling of this Court in Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,30 buttresses the interpretation that the requirement of a congressional franchise for the operation of radio and television stations exists alongside the requirement of a CPC. In that case, we held that under E.O. No. 546, the regulation of radio communications is a function assigned to and performed by the NTC and at the same time recognized the requirement of a congressional franchise for the operation of a radio station under Act No. 3846. We did not interpret E.O. No. 546 to have repealed the congressional franchise requirement under Act No. 3846 as these two laws are not inconsistent and can both be given effect. Likewise, in Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,31 we recognized the necessity of both a congressional franchise under Act No. 3846 and a CPC under E.O. No. 546 to operate a radio communications system.
In buttressing its position that a congressional franchise is not required to operate its television station, petitioner banks on DOJ Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991 which states that under E.O. No. 546, the NTC may issue a permit or authorization for the operation of radio and television broadcasting systems without a prior franchise issued by Congress. Petitioner argues that the opinion is binding and conclusive upon the NTC as the NTC itself requested the advisory from the Secretary of Justice who is the legal adviser of government. Petitioner claims that it was precisely because of the above DOJ Opinion No. 98 that the NTC did not previously require a congressional franchise in all of its applications for permits with the NTC.
Petitioner, however, cannot rely on DOJ Opinion No. 98 as this opinion is merely persuasive and not necessarily controlling.32 As shown above, the opinion is erroneous insofar as it holds that E.O. No. 546 dispenses with the requirement of a congressional franchise to operate radio and television stations. The case of Albano v. Reyes33 cited in the DOJ opinion, which allegedly makes it binding upon the NTC, does not lend support to petitioner’s cause. In that case, we held, viz:
"Franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. Thus, the law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. (See E.O. Nos. 172 and 202)
That the Constitution provides in Art. XII, Sec. 11 that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress does not necessarily imply, as petitioner posits, that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization. Our statute books are replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for certain classes of public utilities. (footnote omitted)"34
Our ruling in Albano that a congressional franchise is not required before "each and every public utility may operate" should be viewed in its proper light. Where there is a law such as P.D. No. 576-A which requires a franchise for the operation of radio and television stations, that law must be followed until subsequently repealed. As we have earlier shown, however, there is nothing in the subsequent E.O. No. 546 which evinces an intent to dispense with the franchise requirement. In contradistinction with the case at bar, the law applicable in Albano, i.e., E.O. No. 30, did not require a franchise for the Philippine Ports Authority to take over, manage and operate the Manila International Port Complex and undertake the providing of cargo handling and port related services thereat. Similarly, in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, et al.,35 we ruled that a legislative franchise is not necessary for the operation of domestic air transport because "there is nothing in the law nor in the Constitution which indicates that a legislative franchise is an indispensable requirement for an entity to operate as a domestic air transport operator."36 Thus, while it is correct to say that specified agencies in the Executive Branch have the power to issue authorization for certain classes of public utilities, this does not mean that the authorization or CPC issued by the NTC dispenses with the requirement of a franchise as this is clearly required under P.D. No. 576-A.
Petitioner contends that the NTC erroneously denied its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recalled its Channel 25 frequency based on the May 3, 1994 MOU that requires a congressional franchise for the operation of television broadcast stations.1a\^/phi1.net The MOU is not an act of Congress and thus cannot amend Act No. 3846 which requires a congressional franchise for the operation of radio stations alone, and not television stations.
We find no merit in petitioner’s contention. As we have shown, even assuming that Act No. 3846 requires only radio stations to secure a congressional franchise for its operation, P.D. No. 576-A was subsequently issued in 1974, which clearly requires a franchise for both radio and television stations. Thus, the 1994 MOU did not amend any law, but merely clarified the existing law that requires a franchise.
That the legislative intent is to continue requiring a franchise for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations is clear from the franchises granted by Congress after the effectivity of E.O. No. 546 in 1979 for the operation of radio and television stations. Among these are: (1) R.A. No. 9131 dated April 24, 2001, entitled "An Act Granting the Iddes Broadcast Group, Inc., a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and Maintain Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines;" (2) R.A. No. 9148 dated July 31, 2001, entitled "An Act Granting the Hypersonic Broadcasting Center, Inc., a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and Maintain Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines;" and (3) R.A. No. 7678 dated February 17, 1994, entitled "An Act Granting the Digital Telecommunication Philippines, Incorporated, a Franchise to Install, Operate and Maintain Telecommunications Systems Throughout the Philippines." All three franchises require the grantees to secure a CPCN/license/permit to construct and operate their stations/systems. Likewise, the Tax Reform Act of 1997 provides in Section 119 for tax on franchise of radio and/or television broadcasting companies, viz:
"Sec. 119. Tax on Franchises. – Any provision of general or special law to the contrary notwithstanding, there shall be levied, assessed and collected in respect to all franchises on radio and/or television broadcasting companies whose annual gross receipts of the preceding year does not exceed Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000), subject to Section 236 of this Code, a tax of three percent (3%) and on electric, gas and water utilities, a tax of two percent (2%) on the gross receipts derived from the business covered by the law granting the franchise. . . " (emphasis supplied)
Undeniably, petitioner is aware that a congressional franchise is necessary to operate its television station Channel 25 as shown by its actuations. Shortly before the December 31, 1994 deadline set in the MOU, petitioner filed an application for a franchise with Congress. It was not, however, acted upon in the 9th Congress for petitioner’s failure to submit the necessary supporting documents; petitioner failed to re-file the application in the following Congress. Petitioner also filed an application for a franchise with Congress on September 2, 1998, before the November 30, 1998 deadline under Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-98.37
We now come to the fourth assigned error. Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the recall of frequency Channel 25 previously assigned to it and the cancellation of its permit to operate which was already approved in January 1998. It claims that these acts of the NTC were unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory considering that the NTC previously issued petitioner a temporary permit without requiring a congressional franchise.
On February 26, 1998, the NTC issued a show cause order to petitioner with the following decretal portion:
"IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this order why their assigned frequency, more specifically Channel 25 in the UHF Band, should not be recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by Section 1, Act No. 3846, as amended.
Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating DWQH-TV, unless subsequently authorized by the Commission."38
The order was supposedly based on a letter of the NTC dated November 17, 1997 informing petitioner that its application for renewal of temporary permits of its seven radio stations were being held in abeyance pending submission of its new congressional franchise. Petitioner was directed to submit the franchise within thirty days from expiration of its temporary permits to be renewed and informed that its failure to do so might constitute denial of its application.
Petitioner is correct that the November 17, 1997 letter referred only to its radio stations and not to its television Channel 25. Thus, it could not serve as basis for the February 26, 1998 show cause order which referred solely to its television Channel 25. Besides, petitioner claims that it did not receive the letter. Be that as it may, the NTC’s February 26, 1998 order for petitioner to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 was not unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory. The 1994 MOU states in unmistakable terms that petitioner’s temporary permit to operate Channel 25 would be valid for only two years, i.e., from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997. During these two years, petitioner was supposed to have secured a congressional franchise, otherwise "the NTC shall not extend or renew its permit or authorization to operate any further."39 Apparently, petitioner did not submit a congressional franchise to the NTC in applying for renewal of this temporary permit on May 14, 1997. The NTC’s approval of petitioner’s application to renew its temporary permit in January 1998 was thus erroneous because under the 1994 MOU, the NTC could not renew petitioner’s temporary permit to operate Channel 25 without a congressional franchise. In the absence of a renewed temporary permit, the NTC was correct in ordering petitioner to cease and desist from operating Channel 25, regardless of whether or not petitioner received the November 17, 1997 letter. The NTC’s erroneous approval of petitioner’s application in January 1998 did not estop the NTC from ordering petitioner on February 26, 1998 to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 for failure to comply with the franchise requirement as estoppel does not work against the government.40
Likewise, the NTC’s denial of petitioner’s application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recall of its Channel 25 frequency in its January 13, 1999 decision were not unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory so as to offend petitioner’s right to due process. In Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,41 the Court ruled that although a particular ground for suspending operations of the broadcasting company was not reflected in the show cause order, the NTC could nevertheless raise said ground if any basis therefore was gleaned during the administrative proceedings. In the instant case, the lack of congressional franchise as ground for denial of petitioner’s application for renewal of temporary permit and recall of its Channel 25 frequency was raised not only during the administrative proceedings against it, but was even stated in the February 26, 1998 show cause order, viz:
"IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this order why their assigned frequency, more specifically Channel 25 in the UHF Band, should not be recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by Section 1, Act No. 3846, as amended.
Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating DWQH-TV, unless subsequently authorized by the Commission." 42 (emphasis supplied)
In Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., et al.,43 we held that the requirements of due process in administrative proceedings laid down by this Court in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations44 should be satisfied before a broadcast station may be closed or its operations curtailed. We enumerated these requirements, viz:
". . . (1) the right to a hearing which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have something to support itself; (4) the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) the board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decisions in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered."45
Petitioner had the opportunity to present its case and submit evidence on why its assigned frequency Channel 25 should not be recalled and its application for renewal denied. Petitioner filed its Answer to the show cause order on March 17, 1998.46 A hearing was held on April 22, 1998 wherein petitioner presented its evidence in compliance with the show cause order. Based on the NTC’s findings that petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of a congressional franchise, the NTC denied its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recalled its assigned Channel 25 frequency. The requirements of due process in Ang Tibay were satisfied, thus petitioner cannot say that the NTC’s actions were unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory.
Finally, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that Administrative Case No. 98-009, the administrative proceeding against it for failure to secure a congressional franchise to operate its television Channel 25, has been rendered moot and academic by the adoption and promulgation of NTC Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-98 dated August 17, 1998 which took effect on November 15, 1998. The Memorandum Circular states, viz:
"In compliance with the MOU and in order to clear the ambiguity surrounding the operation of broadcast operators who were not able to have their legislative franchise approved during the last Congress, the following guidelines are hereby issued:
1. Existing broadcast operators who were not able to secure a legislative franchise up to this date (August 17, 1998) are given up to December 31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise bill approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than November 30th of this year . . ."
Petitioner avers that the NTC erroneously held that this Memorandum Circular is not applicable to it because the words of the circular are clear that it covers "existing broadcasting operators" including petitioner. In compliance with the Memorandum Circular, petitioner filed House Bill No. 32 on September 2, 1998, well within the November 30, 1998 deadline. Thus, petitioner argues that the NTC erred in denying its application for renewal of permit to operate Channel 25 and recalling its assigned Channel 25 frequency on January 13, 1999, long before the Memorandum Circular’s December 31, 1999 deadline to secure a congressional franchise. Petitioner posits that the NTC’s premature and arbitrary promulgation of its January 13, 1999 decision "slammed the door for the petitioner to secure its legislative franchise. The pending application for legislative franchise of petitioner was effectively struck out by said NTC decision."47
Whether or not the benefits of the Memorandum Circular extend to petitioner, the fact is, as correctly pointed out by the appellate court, petitioner failed to secure a legislative franchise by December 31, 1999. Consequently, the NTC’s recall of petitioner’s assigned frequency Channel 25 and denial of its application for renewal of its permit to operate the said television channel were proper as the Memorandum Circular provides, viz:
"1. Existing broadcast operators who are not able to secure a legislative franchise up to this date (August 17, 1998) are given up to December 31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than November 30th of this year . . .
x x x x x x x x x
3. In the event the permittee will not be able to have its franchise bill approved within the prescribed period, the NTC will no longer renew/extend its temporary permit and the Commission shall initiate the recall of its assigned frequency provided that due process of law is observed.
4. Henceforth, no application/petition for Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to establish, maintain and operate a broadcast station in the broadcast service shall be accepted for filing without showing that the applicant has an approved legislative franchise."(emphasis supplied)
Petitioner’s argument is flawed when it states that the January 13, 1999 decision of the NTC "slammed the door" on its application for a congressional franchise as the process of securing a congressional franchise is separate and distinct from the process of applying for renewal of a temporary permit with the NTC. The latter is not a prerequisite to the former. In fact, in the normal course of securing authorizations to operate a television and radio station, the application for a CPC with the NTC comes after securing a franchise from Congress.48 The CPC is not a condition for the grant of a congressional franchise.49
The Court is not unmindful that there is a trend towards delegating the legislative power to authorize the operation of certain public utilities to administrative agencies and dispensing with the requirement of a congressional franchise as in the Albano case which involved the provision of cargo handling and port related services at the Manila International Port Complex and the PAL case involving the operation of domestic air transport. The rationale for this trend was explained in the PAL case, viz:
". . . With the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency towards the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and towards the approval of the practice by the courts.1awphi1.nét (Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065, June 26, 1940, 70 Phil 221.) It is generally recognized that a franchise may be derived indirectly from the state through a duly designated agency, and to this extent, the power to grant franchises has frequently been delegated, even to agencies other than those of a legislative nature. (Dyer vs. Tuskaloosa Bridge Co., 2 Port. 296, 27 Am. D. 655; Christian-Todd Tel. Co. vs. Commonwealth, 161 S.W. 543, 156 Ky. 557, 37 C.J.S. 158) In pursuance of this, it has been held that privileges conferred by grant by local authorities as agents for the state constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by an act of the Legislature. (Superior Water, Light and Power Co. vs. City of Superior, 181 N.W. 113, 174 Wis. 257, affirmed 183 N.W. 254, 37 C.J.S. 158.)
The trend of modern legislation is to vest the Public Service Commissioner with the power to regulate and control the operation of public services under reasonable rules and regulations, and as a general rule, courts will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion when it is just and reasonable and founded upon a legal right."50 1a\^/phi1.net
The criticism against the requirement of a congressional franchise is incisively expressed by a public utilities lawyer, viz:
"As will be noted, a legislative franchise is required to install and operate a radio station before an applicant can apply for a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate a radio station based in any part of the country. Under Act No. 3846 of 1929, Sec. 1, it was provided that no one may install and operate a radio station ‘without having first obtained a franchise therefore from the Congress of the Philippines.’ Since then, this has been strictly followed. And this holds true with respect to application for electric, telephone and many other telecommunications services. Before, even mere application for authority to operate an ice plant must have prior congressional franchise. But this was not strictly followed until ice plant operations were eventually deregulated. Right now, the both houses of the legislature are saddled with House Bill Nos. etc. for the grant of legislative franchise to operate this and that public utility services in various places in the Philippines. We hear during sessions in both houses the time wasted on reports and considerations of these house bills for grant of franchises. The legislature is empowered and has created respective regulatory bodies with requisite expertise to handle franchising and regulation of such types of public utility services, why not just entrust all these functions to them?
What exactly is the reason or rationale for imposing a prior congressional franchise? There seems to be no valid reason for it except to impose added burden and expenses on the part of the applicant. The justification appears to be simply because this was required in the past so it is now. We are reminded of the forceful denunciation of Justice Holmes of a stubborn adherence to an anachronistic rule of law:
‘It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past. (The Path of the Law, Collected Legal Papers [1920] 210, 212 quoted from The Justice Holmes Reader, Julius N. Marke, 1955 ed., p. 278.)’"51
The call to dispense with the requisite legislative franchise must, however, be addressed to Congress as the lawmaker of the land for the Court’s function is to interpret and not to rewrite the law. As long as the law remains unchanged, the requirement of a franchise to operate a television station must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals’ January 13, 2000 decision and February 21, 2000 resolution are AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
x x x."
REPUBLIC ACT No. 11032 - AN ACT PROMOTING EASE OF DOING BUSINESS AND EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
REPUBLIC ACT No. 11032
AN ACT PROMOTING EASE OF DOING BUSINESS AND EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9485, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-RED TAPE ACT OF 2007, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9485, otherwise known as the "Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007", is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018"
Section 2. Section 2 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property as well as to establish effective practices, aimed at efficient turnaround of the delivery of government services and the prevention of graft and corruption in government. Towards this end, the State shall maintain honesty and responsibility among its public officials and employees, and shall take appropriate measures to promote transparency in each agency with regard to the manner of transacting with the public, which shall encompass a program for the adoption of simplified requirements and procedures that will reduce red tape and expedite business and nonbusiness related transactions in government."
Section 3. Section 3 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 3 . Coverage. – This Act shall apply to all government offices and agencies including local government units (LGUs), government-owned or controlled corporations and other government instrumentalities, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, that provide services covering business and nonbusiness related transactions as defined in this Act."
Section 4. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms are defined as follows:
"(a) Action refers to the written approval or disapproval made by a government office or agency on the application or request submitted by an applicant or requesting party for processing;
"(b) Business One Stop Shop (BOSS) – a single common site or location, or a single online website or portal designated for the Business Permit and Licensing System (BPLS) of an LGU to receive and process applications, receive payments, and issue approved licenses, clearances, permits, or authorizations;
"(c) Business-related transactions – a set of regulatory requirements that a business entity must comply with to engage, operate or continue to operate a business, such as, but not limited to, collection or preparation of a number of documents, submission to national and local government authorities, approval of application submitted, and receipt of a formal certificate or certificates, permits, licenses which include primary and secondary, clearances and such similar authorization or documents which confer eligibility to operate or continue to operate as a legitimate business;
"(d) Complex transactions – applications or requests submitted by applicants or requesting parties of a government office which necessitate evaluation in the resolution of complicated issues by an officer or employee of said government office, such transactions to be determined by the office concerned;
"(e) Fixer – any individual whether or not officially involved in the operation of a government office or agency who has access to people working therein, and whether or not in collusion with them, facilitates speedy completion of transactions for pecuniary gain or any other advantage or consideration;
"(f) Government service – the process or transaction between applicants or requesting parties and government offices or agencies involving applications for any privilege, right, reward, license, clearance, permit or authorization, concession, of for any modification, renewal or extension of the enumerated applications or requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the agency or office concerned;
"(g) Highly technical application – an application which requires the use of technical knowledge, specialized skills and/or training in the processing and/or evaluation thereof;
"(h) Nonbusiness transactions – all other government transactions not falling under Section 4 (c) of this Act;
"(i) Officer or employee – a person employed in a government office or agency required to perform specific duties and responsibilities related to the application or request submitted by an applicant or requesting party for processing;
"(j) Processing time – the time consumed by an LGU or national government agency (NGA) from the receipt of an application or request with complete requirements, accompanying documents and payment of fees to the issuance of certification or such similar documents approving or disapproving an application or request;
"(k) Red tape – any regulation, rule, or administrative procedure or system that is ineffective or detrimental in achieving its intended objectives and, as a result, produces slow, suboptimal, and undesirable social outcomes;
"(l) Regulation – any legal instrument that gives effect to a government policy intervention and includes licensing, imposing information obligation, compliance to standards or payment of any form of fee, levy, charge or any other statutory and regulatory requirements necessary to carry out activity; and
"(m) Simple transactions – applications or requests submitted by applicants or requesting parties of a government office or agency which only require ministerial actions on the part of the public officer or employee, or that which present only inconsequential issues for the resolution by an officer or employee of said government."
Section 5. Section 5 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 5. Reengineering of Systems and Procedures. – All offices and agencies which provide government services are hereby mandated to regularly undertake cost compliance analysis, time and motion studies, undergo evaluation and improvement of their transaction systems and procedures and reengineer the same if deemed necessary to reduce bureaucratic red tape and processing time.
"The Anti-Red Tape Authority, created in this Act, shall coordinate with all government offices covered under Section 3 of this Act in the review of existing laws, executive issuances and local ordinances, and recommend the repeal of the same if deemed outdated, redundant, and adds undue regulatory burden to the transacting public.
"All proposed regulations of government agencies under Section 3 of this Act shall undergo regulatory impact assessment to establish if the proposed regulation does not add undue regulatory burden and cost to these agencies and the applicants or requesting parties: Provided, That when necessary, any proposed regulation may undergo pilot implementation to assess regulatory impact.
"Upon effectivity of this Act, all LGUs and NGAs are directed to initiate review of existing policies and operations and commence with the reengineering of their systems and procedures in compliance with the provisions of this Act, pending the approval of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) thereof."
Section 6. Section 6 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 6. Citizen’s Charter. – All government agencies including departments, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities, or government-owned and/or –controlled corporations, or LGUs shall set up their respective most current and updated service standards to be known as the Citizen’s Charter in the form of information billboards which shall be posted at the main entrance of offices or at the most conspicuous place, in their respective websites and in the form of published materials written either in English, Filipino, or in the local dialect, that detail:
"(a) A comprehensive and uniform checklist of requirements for each type of application or request;
"(b) The procedure to obtain a particular service;
"(c) The person/s responsible for each step;
"(d) The maximum time to conclude the process;
"(e) The document/s to be presented by the applicant or requesting party, if necessary;
"(f) The amount of fees, if necessary; and
"(g) The procedure for filing complaints."
Section 7. A new Section 7 is hereby inserted after Section 6 of the same Act to read as follows:
"Sec. 7. Zero-Contact Policy. – Except during the preliminary assessment of the request and evaluation of sufficiency of submitted requirements, no government officer or employee shall have any contact, in any manner, unless strictly necessary with any applicant or requesting party concerning an application or request. Once the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) has completed a web-based software enabled business registration system that is acceptable to the public as mandated under Section 26 of this Act, all transactions shall be coursed through such system. All government agencies including LGUs shall adopt a zero-contact policy."
Section 8. Section 7 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 8 to read as follows:
"Sec. 8. Accountability of Heads of Offices and Agencies. – The head of the office or agency shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of this Act and shall be held accountable to the public in rendering fast, efficient, convenient and reliable service. All transactions and processes are deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned."
Section 9. Section 8 of the same Act is hereby amended and renumbered as Section 9 to read as follows:
"Sec. 9. Accessing Government Services. – The following shall adopted by all government offices and agencies:
"(a) Acceptance of Applications or Requests. –
"(1) All officers or employees shall accept written applications, requests, and/or documents being submitted by applicants or requesting parties of the offices or agencies.
"(2) The receiving officer or employee shall perform a preliminary assessment of the application or request submitted with its supporting documents to ensure a more expeditious action on the application or request. The receiving officer or employee shall immediately inform the applicant or requesting party of any deficiency in the accompanying requirements, which shall be limited to those enumerated in the Citizen’s Charter.
"(3) The receiving officer or employee shall assign a unique identification number to an application or request, which shall be the identifying number for all subsequent transactions between the government and the applicant or requesting party regarding such specific application or request.
"(4) The receiving officer or employee shall issue an acknowledgement receipt containing the seal of the agency, the name of the responsible officer or employee, his/her unit and designation, and the date and time of receipt of such application or request.
"(b) Action of Offices. –
"(1) All applications or requests submitted shall be acted upon by the assigned officer or employee within the prescribed processing time stated in the Citizen’s Charter which shall not be longer than three (3) working days in the case of simple transactions and seven (7) working days in the case of complex transactions from the date the request and/or complete application or request was received.
"For applications or requests involving activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals, public policy, and highly technical application, the prescribed processing time shall in no case be longer than twenty (20) working days or as determined by the government agency or instrumentality concerned, whichever is shorter.
"The maximum time prescribed above may be extended only once for the same number of days, which shall be indicated in the Citizen’s Charter. Prior to the lapse of the processing time, the office or agency concerned shall notify the applicant or requesting party in writing of the reason for the extension and final date of release of the government service/s requested. Such written notification shall be signed by the applicant or requesting party to serve as proof of notice.
"If the application or request for license, clearance permit, certification or authorization shall require the approval of the local Sangguniang Bayan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, or the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as the case may be, the Sanggunian concerned shall be given a period of forty-five (45) working days to act on the application or request, which can be extended for another twenty (20) working days. If the local Sanggunian concerned has denied the application or request, the reason for the denial, as well as the remedial measures that may be taken by the applicant shall be cited by the concerned Sanggunian.
"In cases where the cause of delay is due to force majeure or natural or man-made disasters, which result to damage or destruction of documents, and/or system failure of the computerized or automatic processing, the prescribed processing times mandated in this Act shall be suspended and appropriate adjustments shall be made.
"(2) No application or request shall be returned to the applicant or requesting party without appropriate action. In case an application or request is disapproved, the officer or employee who rendered the decision shall send a formal notice to the applicant or requesting party within the prescribed processing time, stating therein the reason for the disapproval. A finding by a competent authority of a violation of any or other laws by the applicant or requesting party shall constitute a valid ground for the disapproval of the application or request, without prejudice to other grounds provided in this Act or other pertinent laws.
"(c) Denial of Application or Request for Access to Government Service. – Any denial of application or request for access to government service shall be fully explained in writing, stating the name of the person making the denial and the grounds upon which such denial is based. Any denial of application or request is deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned.
"(d) Limitation of Signatories – The number of signatories in any document shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) signatures which shall represent officers directly supervising the office or agency concerned: Provided, That in case the authorized signatory is on official business or official leave, an alternate shall be designated as signatory. Electronic signatures or pre-signed license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization with adequate security and control mechanism may be used.
"(e) Electronic Versions of Licenses, Clearances, Permits, Certifications or Authorizations. – All government agencies covered under Section 3 of this Act shall, when applicable, develop electronic versions of licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations with the same level of authority as that of the signed hard copy, which may be printed by the applicants or requesting parties in the convenience of their offices.
"(f) Adoption of Working Schedules to Serve Applicants or Requesting Parties. – Heads of offices and agencies which render government services shall adopt appropriate working schedules to ensure that all applicants or requesting parties who are within their premises prior to the end of official working hours are attended to and served even during lunch break and after regular working hours.
"(g) Identification Card. – All employees transacting with the public shall be provided with an official identification card which shall be visibly worn during office hours.
"(h) Establishment of Public Assistance/Complaints Desk. – Each office or agency shall establish a public assistance/complaints desk in all their offices."
Section 10. Section 9 of the same Act is hereby amended and renumbered as Section 10 to read as follows:
"Sec. 10. Automatic Approval or Automatic Extension of License, Clearance, Permit, Certification or Authorization. – If a government office or agency fails to approve or disapprove an original application or request for issuance of license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization within the prescribed processing time, said application or request shall be deemed approved: Provided, That all required documents have been submitted and all required fees and charges have been paid. The acknowledgment receipt together with the official receipt for payment of all required fees issued to the applicant or requesting party shall be enough proof or has the same force and effect of a license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization under this automatic approval mechanism.
"if a government office or agency fails to act on an application or request for renewal of a license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization subject for renewal within the prescribed processing time, said license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization shall automatically be extended: Provided, That the Authority, in coordination with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and other agencies which shall formulate the IRR of this Act, shall provide a listing of simple, complex, highly technical applications, and activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals or to public policy."
Section 11. New sections to be numbered as Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are herby inserted after Section 9 of the same Act, to read as follows:
"Sec. 11. Streamlined Procedures for the Issuance of Local Business Licenses, Clearances, Permits, Certifications or Authorizations. – The LGUs are mandated to implement the following revised guidelines in the issuance of business licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations:
"(a) A single or unified business application form shall be used in processing new applications for business permits and business renewals which consolidates all the information of the applicant or requesting party by various local government departments, such as, but not limited to, the local taxes and clearances, building clearance, sanitary permit, zoning clearance, and other specific LGU requirements, as the case may be, including the fire clearance from the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP). The unified form shall be made available online using technology-neutral platforms such as, but not limited to, the central business portal or the city/municipality’s website and various channels for dissemination. Hard copies of the unified forms shall likewise be made available at all times in designated areas of the concerned office and/or agency.
"(b) A one-stop business facilitation service, hereinafter referred to as the business one stop shop, (BOSS) for the city/municipality’s business permitting and licensing system to receive and process manual and/or electronic submission of application for license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization shall be established within the cities/municipalities’ Negosyo Center as provided for under Republic Act No. 10644, otherwise known as the "Go Negosyo Act." There shall be a queuing mechanism in the BOSS to better manage the flow of applications among the LGUs’ departments receiving and processing applications. LGUs shall implement collocation of the offices of the treasury, business permits and licensing office, zoning office, including the BFP, and other relevant city/municipality offices/departments, among others, engaged in starting a business, dealing with construction permits.
"(c) Cities/Municipalities are mandated to automate their business permitting and licensing system or set up an electronic BOSS within a period of three (3) years upon the effectivity of this Act for a more efficient business registration processes. Cities/Municipalities with electronic BOSS shall develop electronic versions of licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations with the same level of authority, which may be printed by businesses in the convenience of their offices. The DICT shall make available to LGUs the software for the computerization of the business permit and licensing system. The DICT, DTI, and DILG, shall provide technical assistance in the planning and implementation of a computerized or software-enabled business permitting and licensing system.
"(d) To lessen the transaction requirements, other local clearances such as, but not limited to, sanitary permits, environmental and agricultural clearances shall be issued together with the business permit.
"(e) Business permits shall be valid for a period of one (1) year. The city/municipality may have the option to renew business permits within the first month of the year or on the anniversary date of the issuance of the business permit.
"(f) Barangay clearances and permits related to doing business shall be applied, issued, and collected at the city/municipality in accordance with the prescribed processing time of this Act: Provided, That the share in the collections shall be remitted to the respective barangays.
"The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as "The Local Government Code of 1991", specifically Article IV, Section 152(c) is hereby amended accordingly."
"Sec. 12. Sreamlined Procedures for Securing Fire Safety Evaluation Clearance (FSEC), Fire Safety Inspection Certificate (FSIC), and Certification of Fire Incidents for Fire Insurance.- For the issuance of FSEC, FSIC, and certification of fire incidents, the following shall be adopted to make business permitting more efficient:
"(a) Issuance of FSEC and FSIC shall in no case be longer than seven (7) working days;
"(b) For new business permit application, the FSIC already issued during the occupancy permit stage shall be sufficient as basis for the issuance of the FSIC for a business entity as a requirement for the business permit;
"(c) For renewal of business permit, the BFP shall, within three (3) working days from application, present the FSIC to the city/municipality, either thru the copy of the FSIC or the negative/positive list: Provided, That the business entity shall inform the BFP and submit the necessary documentary requirements if renovations, modifications or any form of alterations are made to the original building structure thirty (30) working days before the expiration of the business permit;
"(d) If the BFP fails to furnish the city/municipality with an FSIC or to inform the same through the negative/positive list within three (3) working days from the application of business renewal, the business entity shall be deemed to have a temporary valid FSIC and, therefore, shall serve as the basis for the automatic renewal of the business permit;
"(e) Issuance of the certification of fire incident for fire insurance purposes shall in no case be longer than twenty (20) working days, and may be extended only once for another twenty (20) working days;
"(f) The BFP or any of its officials or employees shall not sell, offer to sell, or recommend specific brands of fire extinguishers and other fire safety equipment to any applicant or requesting party or business entity. Any violation thereof shall be punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year to six (6) years and a penalty of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), but not more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
"(g) The BFP shall collocate with the BOSS or in an appropriate area designated by the city/municipality within its premises to assess and collect the fire safety inspection fees;
"(h) The BFP may enter into agreements with cities/municipalities, allowing the latter to be deputized as assessors and/or collecting agents for the fire safety inspection fees; and
"(i) The BFP shall develop and adopt an online or electronic mechanism in assessing fees, collecting/accepting payments and sharing/exchange of other relevant data on business permit processing.
"The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9514, otherwise known as the "Revised Fire Code of the Philippines of 2008", are herby amended accordingly."
"Sec. 13. Central Business Portal (CBP). – To eliminate bureaucratic red tape, avert graft and corrupt practices and to promote transparency and sustain ease of doing business, the DICT shall be primarily responsible in establishing, operating and maintaining a CBP or other similar technology, as the DICT may prescribe.
"The CBP shall serve as a central system to receive applications and capture application data involving business-related transactions, including primary and secondary licenses, and business clearances, permits, certifications, or authorizations issued by the LGUs: Provided, That the CBP may also provide links to the online registration or application systems established by NGAs.
"The DICT, upon consultation with the National Privacy Commission (NPC), NGAs and LGUs shall issue rules and guidelines on the following: (a) the establishment, operation and maintenance of the CBP; and (b) the use of electronic signatures.
"The DICT is hereby mandated to implement an Interconnectivity Infrastructure Development Program for interconnectivity between and among NGAs and LGUs.
"The DICT, in coordination with other concerned NGAs and LGUs shall also conduct information dissemination campaigns aimed towards raising public awareness on the existence of the CBP and the improved access to and effective utilization of the program."
"Sec. 14. Philippine Business Databank (PBD). – Within a period of one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, the DICT, in coordination with the concerned agencies, shall established, manage and maintain a PBD which shall provide the concerned NGAs and LGUs access to data and information of registered business entities for purposes of verifying the validity, existence of and other relevant information pertaining to business entities. All concerned NGAs and LGUs shall either link their own database with the system or periodically submit to the system updates relevant to the information registered with them.
"The DICT, in consultation with the DTI, SEC, Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), NPC, DILG, LGUs, and other concerned agencies, shall issue the IRR on the development management, operation and maintenance of the PBD within three (3) months from the effectivity of this Act.
"Documents already submitted by an applicant or requesting party to an agency which has access to the PBD shall no longer be required by other NGAs and LGUs having the same access. Documents or information shall be crosschecked and retrieved in the PBD.
"At the local government level, the city or municipal business process and licensing office shall not require the same documents already provided by an applicant or requesting party to the local government departments in connection with other business-related licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations such as, but not limited to, tax clearance, occupancy permit and barangay clearance."
"Sec. 15. Interconnectivity Infrastructure Development. – In order to expedite the processing of licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations, the Authority, together with the DICT, shall develop a fast and reliable interconnectivity infrastructure. In relation to this, the processing and approval or licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations for the installation and operation of telecommunication, broadcast towers, facilities, equipment and service shall be:
"(a) a total of seven (7) working days for those issued by the barangay;
"(b) a total of seven (7) working days for those issued by LGUs; and
"(c) seven (7) working days for those issued by NGAs.
"If the granting authority fails to approve or disapprove an application for a license, clearance, permit, certification or authorization within the prescribed processing time, said application shall be deemed approved: Provided, That when the approval of the appropriate local legislative body is necessary, a nonextendible period of twenty (20) working days is hereby prescribed.
"For homeowners and other community clearances, the officers of the homeowners association shall be given ten (10) working days to refer the application to the members of the association pursuant to Section 10(k) of Republic Act No. 9904, otherwise known as the "Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners Associations": Provided, That a nonextendible period of thirty (30) working days is granted the homeowners association to give its consent or disapproval: Provided, further, That in case of disapproval, the granting authority shall notify the applicant or requesting party within the prescribed period of the reason/s for disapproval as well as remedial measures that may be taken by the applicant or requesting party.
"Within three (3) months upon the approval of the IRR of this Act, the Authority, in coordination with the DICT, shall review and recommend the repeal of outdated, redundant and unnecessary licenses, clearances, permits, certifications or authorizations being required by NGAs, LGUs, and private entities."
"Sec. 16. Anti-Red Tape Unit in the Civil Service Commission (CSC). – The CSC shall maintain an anti-red tape unit in its central and all its regional offices, utilize Report Card Survey findings for purposive and integrated government-wide human resource systems and programs toward efficient delivery of government service as contemplated in this Act; and receive, review, hear, and decide on complaints on erring government employees and officials and noncompliance with the provisions of this Act."
"Sec. 17. Anti-Red Tape Authority. – To ensure the attainment of the objectives of this Act, there is hereby created the Anti-Red Tape Authority, herein referred to as the Authority, which shall be organized within six (6) months after the effectivity of this Act. The authority shall be attached to the Office of the President.
"The Authority shall have the following powers and functions:
"(a) Implement and oversee a national policy on anti-red tape and ease of doing business;
"(b) Implement various ease of doing business and anti-red tape reform initiatives aimed at improving the ranking of the Philippines;
"(c) Monitor and evaluate the compliance of agencies covered under Section 3 of this Act, and issue notice of warning to erring and/or noncomplying government employees or officials;
"(d) Initiate investigation, motu proprio or upon receipt of a complaint, refer the same to the appropriate agency, or file cases for violations of this Act;
"(e) Assist complainants in filing necessary cases with the CSC, the Ombudsman and other appropriate courts, as the case may be;
"(f) Recommend policies, processes and systems to improve regulatory management to increase the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of business permitting and licensing agencies;
"(g) Review proposed major regulations of government agencies, using submitted regulatory impact assessments, subject to proportionality rules to be determined by the Authority;
"(h) Conduct regulatory management training programs to capacitate NGAs and LGUs to comply with sound regulatory management practices;
"(i) Prepare, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, regulatory management manuals for all government agencies and/or instrumentalities and LGUs;
"(j) Provide technical assistance and advisory opinions in the review of proposed national or local legislation, regulations or procedures;
"(k) Ensure the dissemination of and public access to information on regulatory management system and changes in laws and regulations relevant to the public by establishing the Philippine Business Regulations Information System;
"(l) Enlist the assistance of the CSC, DTI and other government agencies in the implementation of its powers and functions provided for in this Act; and
"(m) Perform such acts as may be necessary to attain the objectives of this Act."
"Sec. 18. Composition of the Authority.- The Authority shall be headed by a Director General to be appointed by the President of the Philippines upon effectivity of this Act, and such appointment shall be coterminous with the tenure of the President of the Philippines. The Director General shall enjoy the benefits, privileges, and emoluments equivalent to the rank of Secretary.
"The Director General shall oversee the day-to-day operations of the Authority. He/She shall be assisted by three (3) Deputy Directors General each for legal, operations, and administration and finance: Provided, That they are career officials as defined in existing laws, rules and regulations. The Deputy Directors General shall enjoy the benefits, privileges, and emoluments equivalent to the rank of Undersecretary and shall likewise be appointed by the President of the Philippines.
"The Director General of the Authority, in consultation with the CSC, DTI and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), shall determine the organizational structures including regional or field offices, qualification standards, staffing pattern and compensation of the newly created Authority in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations: Provided, That in the absence of regional or field offices, the Authority may deputize the regional personnel of the DTI to perform its powers and functions."
"Sec. 19. Ease of Doing Business and Anti-Red Tape Advisory Council.- There is hereby created an Ease of Doing Business and Anti-Red Tape Advisory Council, herein referred to as the Council. It shall be composed of the Secretary of the DTI as Chairperson, the Director General of the Authority as Vice-Chairperson, the Secretaries of the DICT, DILG and Department of Finance (DOF), and two (2) representatives from the private sector as the members. The department secretaries may designate their representatives, who shall sit in a permanent capacity, with no less than Undersecretary in rank, and their acts shall be considered the acts of their principals. The private sector representatives shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines for a term of three (3) years, and may be reappointed only once, from the nominees submitted by reputable business groups or associations.
"The Council shall be the policy and advisory body to the Authority. The Council shall formulate policies and programs that will continuously enhance and improve the country’s competitiveness and ease of doing business. Towards this end, the Council shall have the following powers and functions:
"(a) Plan, draft and propose a national policy on ease of doing business and anti-red tape;
"(b) Recommend policies, processes and systems to improve regulatory management to increase the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of permitting and licensing agencies;
"(c) Design and identify systems that will continuously enhance and improve the delivery of services in government and ease of doing business in the country;
"(d) Authorize the creation or appointment of specific working groups or task forces in aid of the implementation of this Act;
"(e) Propose legislation, amendments or modifications to Philippine laws related to anti-red tape and ease of doing business;
"(f) Periodically review and assess the country’s competitiveness performance, challenges, and issues;
"(g) Provide technical assistance and advisory opinions in the review of proposed national or local legislation, regulations, or procedures;
"(h) Recommend to the Authority the issuance of the appropriate measures to promote transparency and efficiency in business practices and delivery of services in government; and
"(i) Perform such other functions as may be necessary or as may be directed by the President of the Philippines for the successful implementation to attain the objectives of this Act.
"The Authority shall serve as Secretariat to the Council to be headed by its Deputy Director General for operations.
"The National Competitiveness Council (NCC), created under Executive Order No. 44, Series of 2011, shall be renamed and reorganized as the Council. The pertinent provisions under the following presidential orders: Executive Order No. 571, Executive Order No. 44, and Administrative Order No. 38 are hereby repealed accordingly."
Section 12. Section 10 of the same Act is hereby amended and renumbered as Section 20 to read as follows:
"Sec. 20. Report Card Survey. – All offices and agencies providing government services shall be subjected to a Report Card Survey to be initiated by the Authority, in coordination with the CSC, and the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), which shall be used to obtain feedback on how provisions of this Act are being followed and how the agency is performing.
"The Report Card Survey shall also be used to obtain information and/or estimates of hidden costs incurred by applicants or requesting parties to access governments services which may include, but is not limited to, bribes and payment to fixers. The result of the survey shall also become basis for the grant of awards, recognition and/or incentives for excellent delivery of services in all government agencies.
"A feedback mechanism shall be established in all agencies covered by this Act and the results thereof shall be incorporated in their annual report."
Section 13. Sections 11 and 12 of the same Act are hereby deleted, and replaced with new sections to be numbered as Sections 21 and 22, to read as follows:
"Sec. 21. Violations and Persons Liable. – Any person who performs or cause the performance of the following acts shall be liable:
"(a) Refusal to accept application or request with complete requirements being submitted by an applicant or requesting party without due cause;
"(b) Imposition of additional requirements other than those listed in the Citizen’s Charter;
"(c) Imposition of additional costs not reflected in the Citizen’s Charter;
"(d) Failure to give the applicant or requesting party a written notice on the disapproval of an application or request;
"(e) Failure to render government services within the prescribed processing time on any application or request without due cause;
"(f) Failure to attend to applicants or requesting parties who are within the premises of the office or agency concerned prior to the end of official working hours and during lunch break;
"(g) Failure or refusal to issue official receipts; and
"(h) Fixing and/or collusion with fixers in consideration of economic and/or other gain or advantage."
"Sec. 22. Penalties and Liabilities. РAny violations of the preceding actions will warrant the following penalties and liabilities.1̢wphi1
"(a) First Offense: Administrative liability with six (6) months suspension: Provided, however, That in the case of fixing and/or collusion with fixers under Section 21(h), the penalty and liability under Section 22(b) of this Act shall apply.
"(b) Second Offense: Administrative liability and criminal liability of dismissal from the service, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and forfeiture of retirement benefits and imprisonment of one (1) year to six (6) years with a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), but not more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).
"Criminal liability shall also be incurred through the commission of bribery, extortion, or when the violation was done deliberately and maliciously to solicit favor in cash or in kind. In such cases, the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code and other special laws shall apply."
Section 14. Section 13 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 23 to read as follows:
"Sec. 23. Civil and Criminal Liability, Not Barred.- The finding of administrative liability under this Act shall not be a bar to the filing of criminal, civil or other related charges under existing laws arising from the same act or omission as herein enumerated."
Section 15. Section 14 of the same Act is hereby amended and renumbered as Section 24 to read as follows:
"Sec. 24. Administrative Jurisdiction. – The administrative jurisdiction on any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be vested in either the CSC, or the Office of the Ombudsman as determined by appropriate laws and issuances."
Section 16. Section 15 of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 25, and all succeeding sections of the same Act are hereby deleted.
"Sec. 25. Immunity, Discharge of Co-Respondent/Accused to be a Witness. – Any public official or employee or any person having been charged with another offense under this Act and who voluntarily gives information pertaining to an investigation or who willingly testifies therefore, shall be exempt from prosecution in the case/s where his/her information and testimony are given. The discharge may be granted and directed by the investigating body or court upon the application or petition of any of the respondent/accused-informant and before the termination of the investigation: Provided, That:
"(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the respondent/accused-informant whose discharge is requested;
"(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said respondent/accused-informant;
"(c) The testimony of said respondent can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
"(d) The respondent/accused-informant has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; and
"(e) Said respondent/accused-informant does not appear to be the most guilty.
"Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the records of the investigation. Should the investigating body or court deny the motion or request for discharge as a witness, his/her sworn statement shall be inadmissible as evidence."
Section 17. New sections to be numbered as Sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 are hereby inserted after Section 15 of the same Act to read as follows:
"Sec. 26. Transition from Manual to Software-Enabled Business-Related Transactions. – The DICT, in coordination with other concerned agencies, shall within three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act, automate business-related transactions by developing the necessary software and technology-neutral platforms and secure infrastructure that is web-based and accessible to the public. The DICT shall ensure that all municipalities and provinces classified as third (3rd), fourth (4th), fifth (5th) and sixth (6th) class are provided with appropriate equipment and connectivity, information and communications technology platform, training and capability building to ensure the LGUs compliance with this Act."
"Sec. 27. Transitory Provisions. –
"(a) The Director General of the Authority, in consultation with the DTI, shall determine the organizational structure and personnel complement of the Authority.1âwphi1 To ensure continued implementation of ease of doing business and anti-red tape reforms, the teams or units involved in regulatory improvement and/or ease of doing business-related programs of the DTI-Competitiveness Bureau shall serve as temporary secretariat of the Authority until such time that its organizational structure and personnel complement have been determined and filled up: Provided, That the staff of the DTI-Competitiveness Bureau shall have the option to be absorbed or transferred laterally to the Authority without diminution of their rank, position, salaries and other emoluments once the staffing pattern and plantilla position of the Authority has been approved.
"(b) All regulatory management programs and anti-red tape initiatives across government agencies shall be gathered by the Authority. The DTI, CDA, NCC, DOF, Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), and National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) shall submit to the Authority a report on the status of their respective projects related to regulatory management.
"(c) The Authority, in coordination with CSC and the Council, shall conduct an information dissemination campaign in all NGAs and LGUs to inform them of this Act amending Republic Act No. 9485, otherwise known as the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007."
"Sec. 28. Congressional Oversight Committee. – To monitor the implementation of this Act, there shall be created a Congressional Oversight Committee on Ease of Doing Business (COC-EODB), to be composed of five (5) members from the Senate, which shall include the Chairpersons of the Senate Committees on Trade and Commerce and Entrepreneurship, Civil Service, Government Reorganization and Professional Regulation, and Economic Affairs; and five (5) members from the House of Representatives which shall include the Chairpersons of the House Committees on Trade and Industry, Civil Service and Professional Regulation, Government Reorganization, and Economic Affairs. The COC-EODB shall be jointly chaired by the Chairpersons of the Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce and Entrepreneurship and the House of Representatives Committee on Trade and Industry: Provided, That the oversight committee shall cease to exist after five (5) years upon the effectivity of this Act.
"The Secretariat of the COC-EODB shall be drawn from the existing personnel of the Senate and House of Representatives committees comprising the COC-EODB."
"Sec. 29. Appropriations. – The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be charged against the current year’s appropriations of the concerned agencies. In addition, the amount of Three hundred million pesos (P300,000,000.00) as initial funding for the Authority to be charged against the unexpended Contingency Fund of the Office of the President is hereby appropriated. Thereafter, the amount needed for the implementation of this Act shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act."
"Sec. 30. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The Authority with the CSC and DTI, and in coordination with the DICT, DOF, DILG, NEDA, PSA, CDA, SEC, the Office of the Ombudsman, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations within ninety (90) working days from the effectivity of this Act."
"Sec. 31. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act."
"Sec. 32. Repealing Clause. – All provisions of laws, presidential decrees, letters of instruction and other presidential issuances which are incompatible or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby deemed amended or repealed accordingly."
"Sec. 33. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect within fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation."
Section 18. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,
PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
AQUILINO "KOKO" PIMENTEL III
President of the Senate
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1311 and House Bill No. 6579 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on February 21, 2018 and February 27, 2018, respectively.
CESAR STRAIT PAREJA
Secretary General
House of Representatives
LUTGARDO B. BARBO
Secretary of the Senate
Approved: May 28, 2018
RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE
President of the Philippines
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)