{"id":245339,"date":"2020-02-18T20:21:27","date_gmt":"2020-02-19T01:21:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=245339"},"modified":"2020-02-18T20:21:27","modified_gmt":"2020-02-19T01:21:27","slug":"gag-order-on-case-vs-abs-cbn-necessary-palace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/02\/18\/gag-order-on-case-vs-abs-cbn-necessary-palace\/","title":{"rendered":"Gag order on case vs. ABS-CBN necessary: Palace"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Calida said ABS-CBN violates the sub judice rule which restricts parties, witnesses, the public in general, and most especially lawyers and judges from making comments and disclosures in relation to pending cases before the courts. (File photo<\/a>: Paul Papadimitriou\/Flickr<\/a>, CC BY 2.0<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0— Malaca\u00f1ang on Tuesday deemed it necessary for Solicitor General Jose Calida to file a gag order before the Supreme Court (SC) to bar parties from issuing statements on the pending quo warranto plea against the franchise of broadcasting firm ABS-CBN Corp.<\/p>\n

Speaking to Palace reporters, Presidential Spokesperson and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo backed Calida\u2019s move because ABS-CBN\u2019s franchise has become an \u201cemotional\u201d topic.<\/p>\n

\u201cTama naman siya do\u2019n kasi parang nagiging<\/em>\u00a0emotional\u00a0ang<\/em>\u00a0issue on this particular topic (He\u2019s right about that because the issue has become emotional on this particular topic). It’s much ado about nothing. It\u2019s not about press freedom,\u201d Panelo said.<\/p>\n

Calida filed a very urgent motion for the issuance of gag order before the high tribunal, accusing ABS-CBN of engaging in \u201cpropaganda in clear attempt to elicit public sympathy, sway public opinion, and ultimately to influence the resolution of the case.\u201d<\/p>\n

He cited the statements issued by ABS-CBN, its artists, and other personalities with regard to the quo warranto petition.<\/p>\n

Calida said ABS-CBN violates the sub judice rule which restricts parties, witnesses, the public in general, and most especially lawyers and judges from making comments and disclosures in relation to pending cases before the courts.<\/p>\n

He said ABS-CBN\u2019s propaganda may render them liable for indirect contempt.<\/p>\n

Panelo said parties in the quo warranto plea should refrain from being engaged in public discussion.<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause it’s pending before the courts. If it’s pending before the court, it becomes sub judice (under judicial consideration),\u201d he said, when asked as to why the gag order was necessary.<\/p>\n

Panelo said the gag order was meant to ensure that ABS-CBN\u2019s discussions on the merit of the quo warranto petition would not have an influence on SC\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cPrecisely, the gag order refers to not discussing the merits of the case because that will tend to influence the court,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Calida earlier filed a quo warranto petition before the SC, seeking the forfeiture of ABS-CBN\u2019s congressional franchise due to the embattled media firm\u2019s alleged \u201chighly abusive practices\u201d at the expense of millions of its loyal subscribers.<\/p>\n

ABS-CBN, according to Calida\u2019s plea, allegedly violated the 1987 Constitution when it allowed foreign investors to take part in its ownership by issuing Philippine Deposit Receipts through ABS-CBN Holdings Corp.<\/p>\n

The 1987 Constitution states that mass media ownership is limited to Filipino entities or groups.<\/p>\n

Gov\u2019t officials exempted<\/strong><\/p>\n

Panelo clarified that the gag order does not apply to public officials as long as they do not \u201cgo to the merits of the case.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cLike for instance, why are you filing this case? He can articulate on their grounds, that would not be violating the gag rule,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n

He said lawmakers cannot also be stopped from asking questions that are related to the quo warranto case against ABS-CBN.<\/p>\n

He, however, said resource persons invited by the Congress can be covered by the gag order.<\/p>\n

Panelo also maintained that President Rodrigo Duterte did not order Calida to file the new plea before SC.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe President has nothing to do with the petition, again we will repeat, of SolGen Calida. He\u2019s just doing his job,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Duterte has repeatedly slammed ABS-CBN in his public speeches.<\/p>\n

His grievances against ABS-CBN stemmed from the latter\u2019s supposed failure to run his campaign advertisements during the 2016 presidential race.<\/p>\n

Panelo, however, said Duterte\u2019s personal displeasure with ABS-CBN and previous threat to shut down its operations \u201cshould not be taken literally.\u201d<\/p>\n

Duterte would not use his office to stop ABS-CBN from continuing with its service, Panelo reiterated.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat he (Duterte) meant is he will not allow ABS-CBN to be committing fraud against those who contracted to air campaign commercials. That’s what he meant,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

ABS-CBN\u2019s franchise is set to expire on March 30 this year.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0— Malaca\u00f1ang on Tuesday deemed it necessary for Solicitor General Jose Calida to file a gag order before the Supreme …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":244725,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-245339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-ruth-abbey-gita-carlos","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245339"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":245340,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245339\/revisions\/245340"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/244725"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}