FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Supreme Court declared that a franchise is a privilege, not a right: A franchise started out as a "royal privilege or (a) branch of the King's prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject."…Today, a franchise, being merely a privilege emanating from the sovereign power of the state and owing its existence to a grant, is subject to regulation by the state itself by virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies.1 In Divinagracia vs. Consolidated Broadcasting Systems, Inc., the Supreme Court explained that the need for regulation for broadcast media in particular is justified due to the scarcity of airwaves, otherwise known as the Scarcity Doctrine.2 It further acknowledged the government’s duty to impose regulations to see to it that broadcasters promote the public good deemed important by the State and withdraw that privilege from those who fall short: It is through that role that it becomes legally viable for the government to impose its own values and goals through a regulatory regime that extends beyond the assignation of frequencies, notwithstanding the free expression guarantees enjoyed by broadcasters. As the government is put in a position to determine who should be worthy to be accorded the privilege to broadcast from a finite and limited spectrum, it may impose regulations to see to it that broadcasters promote the public good deemed important by the State, and to withdraw that privilege from those who fall short of the standards set in favor of other worthy applicants. The Supreme Court also recognized in Del Mar vs. PAGCOR, et. al.3 the legislature’s power and duty to regulate public morals in its grant of a franchise “affected with public interest”: Lest the idea gets lost in the shoals of our subconsciousness, let us not forget that PAGCOR is engaged in business affected with public interest. The phrase "affected with public interest" means that an industry is subject to control for the public good; it has been considered as the equivalent of "subject to the exercise of the police power." Perforce, a legislative franchise to operate jai-alai is imbued with public interest and involves an exercise of police power. The familiar rule is that laws which grant the right to exercise a part of the police power of the state are to be construed strictly and any doubt must be resolved against the grant. The legislature is regarded as the guardian of society, and therefore is not presumed to disable itself or 1
2
3
Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. National Telecommunications Commission and Kayumanggi Radio Network Incorporated, G.R. No. L-68729, May 29, 1987. Santiago C. Divinagracia vs. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. and People’s Broadcasting Service, Inc., G.R. No. 162272, April 7, 2009. G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982, August 24, 2001.