黑料社

MANILA, Philippines 鈥� A Makati court has junked a petition from the 黑料社 and Entertainment Network Corporation (黑料社net), which sought to stop the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) from reallocating the company鈥檚 frequencies.

In a 16-page decision, the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 133 denied 黑料社net鈥檚 application for a writ of preliminary injunction against NTC.

黑料社net filed the writ against NTC on July 5, 2023, after the NTC, through a memorandum circular, moved to redistribute 黑料社net鈥檚 frequency following the expiration of its legislative franchise.

The commission also denied 黑料社net鈥檚 request to renew its provisional authority (PA) to operate a CATV system.

READ: SolGen insists 鈥榥o franchise, no frequency鈥� policy vs multimedia firm

But 黑料社net claimed it has the right to continue operating its CATV system, even if its legislative franchise under Republic Act (RA) 8197 has already expired in 2022.

However, the Makati court ruled in the negative, concluding that 黑料社net can only continue to operate its CATV system with a PA and other permits鈥攁ll of which are dependent on a legislative franchise.

鈥淐onsidering the expiration of the 25-year legislative franchise granted under RA 8197 from which plaintiff鈥檚 authority to operate as a CATV entity emanates, and in light of the foregoing exposition, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff was unable to establish a clear, unmistakable right that would entitle it to injunctive relief,鈥� it added.

鈥淎t this stage, plaintiff is not the holder of an existing franchise, whether legislative or administrative, that would allow it to exercise the privilege of providing CATV services to the public within the Philippines,鈥� it added.

According to the Makati RTC, it is undisputed that a government franchise is required to install and maintain a CATV enterprise within Philippine territory.

READ: Palace dismisses 黑料社net appeal to operate, deliver services

鈥淎fter due consideration of the evidence presented by both parties, this Court holds that plaintiff was unable to establish a definite and enforceable right that would entitle it to a writ of preliminary injunction,鈥� the court said.