Topic: Veto Power Title: Bolinao Electronics Crop Vs Valencia 11 SCRA 486
Topic: Veto Power Title: Bolinao Electronics Crop Vs Valencia 11 SCRA 486
Topic: Veto Power Title: Bolinao Electronics Crop Vs Valencia 11 SCRA 486
Facts:
The case filed before the Court is a petition for prohibition, mandatory
injunction with preliminary injunction filed by herein petitioners, Bolinao
Electronics Corporation, Chronicle Broadcasting Network, Inc., and
Monserrat Broadcasting System, Inc., against respondents Secretary of
Public Works and Communication and Acting Chief of the Radio Control
Division.
the issues presented to the Court for resolution are: (1) whether the
investigation being conducted by respondents, in connection with petitioners'
applications for renewal of their station licenses, has any legal basis;(2)
whether or not there was abandonment or renunciation by the Chronicle
Broadcasting Network (CBN) of channel 9 in favor of PBS; and (3) whether
or not Philippine Broadcasting Service can legally operate Channel 9 and is
entitled to damages, for CBN's refusal to give up operations.
Issue:
Ruling:
The only basis of the contention of the respondents that there was
such renunciation is the statement "Channel 10 assigned in lieu of Channel
9", appearing in the construction permit to transfer television station DZXL-
TV from Quezon City to Baguio City, issued to petitioner. This statement
alone, however, does not establish any agreement between the radio control
authority and the station operator, on the switch or change of operations of
CBN from Channel 9 to Channel 10.
Under Art. VI, Sec. 20 of the Constitution, the President has the power
to veto any particular item or items of an appropriation bill. However, when
a provision of an appropriation bill affects one or more items of the same,
the President cannot veto the provision without at the same time vetoing the
particular item or items to which it relates.
The executive's veto power does not carry with it the power to strike
out conditions or restrictions, has been adhered to in subsequent cases. If
the veto is unconstitutional, it follows that the same produced no effect
whatsoever, and the restriction imposed by the appropriation bill, therefore,
remains. Any expenditure made by the intervenor Philippine Broadcasting
Service, for the purpose of installing or operating a television station in
Manila, where there are already television stations in operation, would be in
violation of the express condition for the release of the appropriation and,
consequently, null and void. It is not difficult to see that even if it were able
to prove its right to operate on Channel 9, said intervenor would not have
been entitled to reimbursement of its illegal expenditures.