Newsounds Broadcasting v.

Dy
G.R. Nos. 170270 & 179411
Justice Tinga

Bombo Radyo operates several radio stations including petitioners Newsounds and CBS.
Newsounds runs an AM radio broadcast station called DZNC Cauayan. CBS, on the other hand,
operates Star FM DWIT Cauayan. The services areas of DZNC and Star FM extend from Isabela to
Region II and Cordillera Region.
Newsounds relocated its broadcasting stations on property owned by CBS Development
Corporation, an affiliate corporation under Bombo Radyo. Three issuances were made regarding
the matter of relocation – (1) building permit authorizing the construction of the establishment; (2)
a Zoning Decision certifying the property as commercial; (3) a statement certifying that the
commercial structure conformed to local zoning regulations, and certifying that the location is a
Commercial area. From 1997 to 2001, these issuances, together with the mayor’s permit, were
given to the petitioners.
However, in 2002, petitioners had a difficult time obtaining the said documents. Petitioners
were not issued a zoning clearance for the property by the city zoning administrator Maximo.
Maximo claimed that they had to secure either an approved land conversion paper from the
Department of Agrarian Reform or a resolution from the Sangguniang Bayan, showing that the
properties were classified as commercial. Petitioners have never been required to submit such
papers before. Without such papers, no mayor’s permit shall be issued. Petitioners filed with the
RTC a petition for mandamus to compel the issuance of mayor’s permit but the decision was against
them.
When petitioners were able to obtain the papers from DAR in 2003, Acting City
Administrator argued that such were spurious or void. In 2004, petitioners were not given the
mayor’s permit again. In February 2004, private respondents closed the radio stations. Petitioners
filed a petition with COMELEC seeking the enforcement of the Omnibus Election Code, which
prohibited the closure of radio stations during the then-pendency of election period. Decision was
rendered in petitioners’ favor, and they were able to operate until the date of the end of election
period (June 9, 2004). On June 10, 2004, private respondents, including the Mayor, closed the radio
stations. Petitioners filed with the RTC a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to resume
operations. The RTC, however, rendered a decision in favor of private respondents. Petitioners filed
a motion for reconsideration, citing trial court’s failure to hear and act on the motion as a violation
of the right to due process. It was denied by RTC.
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari which imputed
grave abuse of discretion on the part of trial court. CA rendered a decision against the petitioners,
affirming the right of private respondents to deny petitioners their mayor’s permit.
Bombo Radyo was aggressive in exposing widespread irregularities in Isabela favoring
respondent Dy and other members of the Dy political dynasty. Respondent Cesar Dy is the brother
of Fasutino Dy, Jr., governor of Isabela who was defeated by Grace Padaca, a former assistant
manager at petitioners’ DZNC Bombo Radyo. The rival radio station is owned by the Dy family.

Issues

1) Did the acts (to shut down petitioner’s radio stations) imputed against respondents
constitute a prior restraint on the freedom of expression of respondents?

Yes. The action of respondents was a content-based restraint, which is treated as more
suspect that content-neutral laws.
  Prior to 2002, petitioners easily obtained the various local government
requirements. However, in 2002, the local government started to impose new
requirements to the petitioners.
 Furthermore, respondents succeeded in closing the radio stations before the May
2004 elections, where a former employee of the DZNC, Padaca, was mounting a
challenge to the brother of respondent Dy.
 The requirements for the petitioners were not conventionally adopted by local
governments in the Philippines.

2) Did the RTC, in denying the application for preliminary mandatory injunction, commit grave
abuse of discretion?

Yes. The action of the RTC betrayed ignorance of the constitutional implications of the petition.
The petitioners deserve the relief.
 There was a Closure Order dated February 13, 2004. There was no better evidence
to substantiate the claim that petitioners faced the live threat of their closure.
 On June 10, 2004, there was permanent closure, so that petitioners’ constitutional
rights were definitely infringed.
 The application of the strict scrutiny test to petitioners’ claim for provisional relief
warrants the conclusion that the trial court cannot deny provisional relief to the
party alleging a prima facie case alleging government infringement on the right to
free expression without hearing from the infringer the case why its actions should
be sustained provisionally. It is necessary for the infringer to appear before the
courts to rebut the presumption of unconstitutionality in its action.

3) Were the requirements imposed on the petitioners legitimate?

Rule: The sanggunian has a power to enact ordinances authorizing the issuance if permits or
licenses, subject to the provisions of Book Two of the LGC. The power of mayor to use license
and permits must be exercised pursuant to law or ordinance. While this may lead to some
concern that requiring media entities to secure permits infringes on the constitutional right to
free press, there is no concern as long as such requirements have been duly ordained through
loval legislation and concent-neutral in character.

The actions of the respondents were clearly violative of the right to free expression and free
press.
 Nothing in Ordinance 92-004 mentions that the approved land conversion from
DAR, or an approved resolution from Sangguniang Bayan, is necessary before a
mayor’s permit can be issued. Likewise, the ordinance does not impose on the
applicant any burden to establish that the property from where the business was to
operate had been duly classified as commercial.
 There is no evidence from respondents that the subject lot was reclassified from
commercial to agricultural, which would justify the denial of mayor’s permit.
 Petitioners have been paying real property taxes on the property based on the
classification of the property as commercial, without any objections raised by
respondents.
 Showing no evidence that the Cauayan City erred when it certified that the property
was commercial, petitioners are estopped from asserting that the previous
recognition of the property as commercial was wrong.
  The Order, certifying that the property was classified for commercial use, issued by
DAR Region II Director was not spurious. It was issued by the Director of the DAR
Region II Office.
 In sum, respondents failed to adduce evidence justifying their refusal to issue
mayor’s permit and their closing the radio stations.

4) What reliefs should have been granted?

The assailed CA decisions are reversed and set aside and respondents are directed to immediately
issue petitioners’ zoning clearances and mayor’s permit for 2004.