Under the law, broadcast companies like TV and radio stations are actually not required to obtain a legislative franchise before they could begin operating, Surigao del Sur Rep. Prospero Pichay, Jr.
(LAKAS) said today.
While at present broadcast companies still apply for a franchise with Congress, the Public Telecommunications Policy Act of 1995 (RA 7925) only mandates public telecommunications entities –and not broadcast companies– to fulfill this requirement.
“The law is very clear. RA 7925 states that only public telecommunications entities are required to obtain a legislative franchise. Inexplicably, the law does not require broadcast entities to seek a legislative franchise,” said Pichay.
To correct this, Deputy Speaker Pichay filed HB 6680 on Monday to amend crucial provisions of RA 7925 so that broadcast companies would also be covered by the legislative franchise requirement.
Pichay said the Telecommunications Act clearly takes note of the difference between telecommunications and broadcast enterprises, which are distinct sectors. In fact, the two activities are defined separately under Section 3 of RA 7925.
“Under RA 7925, the terms “telecommunications”, “broadcasting”, “public telecommunications entity” and “franchise” were clearly defined. The definition of a public telecommunications entity does not include broadcasting, which is a separate and distinct activity. Neither does the definition of franchise include broadcast entities.”
“Clearly, there is a gap in the law because only public telecommunications entities are required to obtain a franchise which excludes those persons engaged in broadcasting companies.”
Thus, Pichay in his bill called for amendments to Sections 1, 2, 3 and 16 of RA 7925.
In Section 1, the bill proposes the renaming of the law to the “Public Telecommunications [Policy] AND BROADCASTING Act of the Philippines.”
HB 6680 seeks a similar change in Section 2 so that broadcast entities would also be covered, to: “This Act shall apply to all public telecommunications AND BROADCASTING ENTITIES in the Philippines.”
Likewise, Section 3 (d) of RA 7925 does not cover broadcast entities in its definition of a franchise: “Franchise – a privilege conferred upon a telecommunications entity by congress, authorizing that entity to engage in a certain type of telecommunications service.”
To correct this, HB 6680 proposes its amendment to: “Franchise – a privilege conferred upon a telecommunications entity AND A BROADCASTING (TELEVISION AND RADIO) ENTITY by congress, authorizing SUCH ENTITIES [that entity] to engage in a certain type of telecommunications service AND BROADCASTING SERVICE.
Also, Section 16 of RA 7925 omits broadcast entities from the franchise requirement: “No person shall commence or conduct the business of being a public telecommunications entity without first obtaining a franchise.”
Under HB 6680, Section 16 would be amended to read: “No person shall commence or conduct the business of being a public telecommunications entity AND A BROADCAST (TELEVISION AND RADIO) ENTITY without first obtaining a franchise.”
Finally, under the proposed transitory clause also under Section 16, broadcast entities with pending applications and expired or expiring franchises would be given five years to comply with the measure’s provisions.
