Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano appears to be mistaken when he implied that since ABS-CBN “took sides in the 2010 and 2016 elections”, the renewal of its franchise is imperiled.

Granting that the network took sides, taking sides is not a franchise violation per se.

The freedom of the press affords media outlets, like television and radio stations, sufficient latitude to telecast and broadcast their sentiments supporting or opposing certain advocacies, issues, and personalities.

The limitation is that the telecast or broadcast must not be libelous or must not constitute a criminal offense.

Under its franchise, ABS-CBN is enjoined “not (to) use its stations for the broadcasting of obscene and indecent language, speech, act or scene, or the dissemination of deliberately false information or willful misrepresentation to the detriment of the public interest, or to incite, encourage, or assist in subversive or treasonable acts.”

It is not prohibited to take sides in exercise of press freedom and freedom of expression.

Aside from providing the public with information, public service, and entertainment, a broadcasting network is a catalyst for the formation of differing opinions.

Critical commentary or reasonable bias is protected by the expansive veil of freedom of the press and free speech. It is tolerable and not sanctionable.

In the United States, television outlets are allowed to broadcast their own biases.

For example, FOX News is unabashedly a President Trump apologist while CNN is a Trump constant critic.

Addendum:

In Chavez v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008), the Supreme Court opined:

1. “The scope of freedom of expression is so broad that it extends protection to nearly all forms of communication.”

2. “Not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press.”

3. “The totality of the injurious effects of the violation of private and public interest must be calibrated in light of the preferred status accorded by the Constitution and by related international covenants protecting freedom of speech and of the press.”

4. “For it is only when the people have unbridled access to information and the press, that they will be capable of rendering enlightened judgments. In the oft-quoted words of Thomas Jefferson, we cannot be both free and ignorant.”

In FCC v. League of Women Voters (468 US 364 [1984]), the United States Supreme Court held that: “Expression of editorial opinion was described as a ‘form of speech’…that lies at the heart of First Amendment protection”. (non-abridgment of the freedom of speech and of the press, among others).

EDCEL C. LAGMAN