Feb 10, 2020 @ 19:01
SC isn’t a trier of facts! Ted Te thinks SC should immediately trash Calida’s case vs ABS-CBN
Former Supreme Court Public Information Chief Theodore Te believes the High Court should immediately reject the quo warranto case filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida seeking to revoke the television and broadband franchises of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.
In a tweet, Te said the quo warranto action fell “squarely” under the Gios-Samar rule (Gios-Samar, Inc. represented by its Chairperson Gerardo M. Maliano Vs. Department of Transportation and Communication and Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines).
Quoting the March 2019 ruling, Te said: “The SC should ‘refuse to resolve the question regardless of the allegation or invocation of compelling reasons, such as the transcendental or paramount importance of the case’.”
Gios-Samar, a non-governmental organization composed of farmers and fisherfolk from Samar, questioned the constitutionality of the Department of Transportation and Communication1 (DOTC) and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) move to bundling of six airport projects – P50.66 billion for Bacolod-Silay and Iloilo airports; and P59.66 billion for Davao, Laguindingan, and New Bohol (Panglao) airports.
In its petition, Gios-Samar said DOTC-CAAP would create a monopoly; lead to restraint of trade; violate anti-dummy laws; and enable companies with shaky financial backgrounds to participate in the Projects.
The SC immediately quashed the case without conducting any hearings.
“Petitioner’s arguments against the constitutionality of the bundling of the Projects are inextricably intertwined with underlying questions of fact, the determination of which require the reception of evidence.
This Court, however, is not a trier of fact. We cannot resolve these factual issues at the first instance. For this reason, we dismiss the petition,” the SC said.
“Such question must first be brought before the proper trial courts or the CA (Court of Appeals), both of which are specially equipped to try and resolve factual questions,” the SC said.
The QW action falls squarely under the Gios-Samar rule (see link). The SC should “refuse to resolve the question regardless of the allegation or invocation of compelling reasons, such as the transcendental or paramount importance of the case.” (p. 41) https://t.co/nup5Z9N4KI
— Theodore Te (@TedTe) February 10, 2020