SC junks suit vs. House order on NTC over ABS-CBN franchise

In a statement sent to reporters, the SC Public Information Office said the tribunal dismissed the petition without need for a comment from the other parties, adding that Gadon failed to comply with the requisites for judicial review since he had no legal standing to question the alleged order of Cayetano and House Committee on Legislative Franchises chair, Rep. Franz E. Alvarez to the NTC. (File Photo By Aerous – Own work/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)

MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by lawyer Lorenzo Gadon questioning the authority of House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano to order Commissioner Gamaliel Cordoba of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to grant a provisional authority to operate to broadcast network ABS-CBN Corp. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.

In a statement sent to reporters, the SC Public Information Office said the tribunal dismissed the petition without need for a comment from the other parties, adding that Gadon failed to comply with the requisites for judicial review since he had no legal standing to question the alleged order of Cayetano and House Committee on Legislative Franchises chair, Rep. Franz E. Alvarez to the NTC.

Gadon, the SC said, “is too distant, his interest is too inchoate and speculative, for this Court to responsibly proceed”.

The High Court also junked Gadon’s plea for a temporary restraining order against Cayetano.

“Having no legal standing, the Court does not deem it efficient to proceed to deliberate on the other issues he raises. The procedural and substantial issues hinted in the petition will better be adjudicated with the real parties in interest,” a portion of the SC resolution said.

It added that the filing of cases in the SC is no trifling matter and should never be considered except when all the requisites of judicial review are present.

“It should never be contemplated by one who admits not suffering any legal injury,” the SC said, adding that the “overeagerness to file border on the contumacious (and) also puts in unnecessary peril the legal arguments of the person or entity that has an actual case”.