ABS-CBN was not given a provisional authority unlike five other broadcasting firms the National Telecommunications Commission’s (NTC) had allowed to operate up to 2 years even though their franchise had lapsed.

Solicitor General Jose Calida, the alleged’man behind the ABS-CBN shutdown, justified before the Supreme Court the different treatment accorded to ABS–CBN by the National Telecommunications Commission.

In a 157-page reply submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of its client NTC, Calida claimed first that NTC ‘s previous practice was not “a source of the right to be sought.”

“Even assuming that the NTC previously allowed mass media entities to continue operating after the lapse of their franchises because of pending application for legislative franchises, the practice cannot be the source of demandable right.”

Calida had effectively implied that NTC violated existing laws and jurisprudence that say that only a franchise issued by Congress can allow a broadcaster to operate,

No corporation shall…operate a radio station without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Philippine Legislature.

“Just as the NTC cannot prevent the exercise of a legislative franchise, neither can it extend one without a proper grant from the legislature.”

As he cited the case of the Radio Law or Republic Act 3846 and the case of the Supreme Court, Calida stressed that NTC shouldn’t be excused for the violation of the existing laws,

“The violation or non–observance [of the laws] shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.”

Previously, broadcast journalist Karen Davila tweeted that under the constitution, according to Congressman Prospero Pichay, President Rodrigo Duterte can still revoke NTC’s closure order against ABS-CBN because it is under his authority.

Former senator and now Sorsogon Governor Francis “Chiz” Escudero also confirmed that President Rodrigo Duterte can reverse NTC’s decision,

Calida, however, continued to support the procedure of the NTC saying that ABS-CBN is in a different position than the other businesses that have been given grace periods.

Equal rights do not apply in legal standards where there is a clear difference between two individuals or organizations.