In a congressional hearing on Monday, ABS-CBN’s lawyer said the Lopez family legally retrieved the network’s title from the government in 1986.
It was during Ferdinand Marcos’s regime and the declaration of martial law when the network was given a sequestration order in 1972.
The lawyer pointed out that it was given a general grant of approval upon its return to the Lopezes.
“Two administrations gave imprimatur for the return of the possession of ABS-CBN of its real estate properties and broadcast equipment,” he said.
Lopezes regained control of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. in 1986 and its assets through a process of arbitration with the Corazon Aquino administration which was later upheld by the Supreme Court.
“And even the Supreme Court, one validating the agreement to arbitrate and another one for the factual circumstances, lends constitutionality to the return.”
Arecio Rendor, one of the network’s lawyers, added that another arbitration agreement under the Fidel Ramos regime determined the “reasonable compensation” for the use of ABS-CBN’s equipment and other assets from 1986 to 1992.
The lawyer said that the ABS-CBN’s ownership remained with the Lopez family even after it was seized by the Marcos dictatorship.
“What was taken from ABS-CBN was the mere possession of all its real estate and broadcast equipment,” he explained.
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said during the hearing last Monday, “The enactment of Republic Act 7966 (RA7966) has put to rest any challenge to the reacquisition by the Lopez family of ABS-CBN.”
According to Rendor, no civil or criminal cases have been filed against the Lopez family or ABS-CBN officers for illegal reacquisition of the company.
“As far as obligation po, kung meron ang ABS-CBN, kung civil po ito, nag-prescribe na,” added Rendor.
“The reacquisition po of ABS-CBN by the Lopez family never violated any constitutional provision as far as the Lopez family is concerned,” Rendor told lawmakers.
“ABS-CBN po should be legally compensated because the takeover, as far as ABS-CBN is concerned, it’s legal position was that, it was not in accordance with the law.
“Granting arguendo (for the sake of argument) that the reacquisition is not legal, this would only result to a civil infraction,” Lagman stressed.
