26 89. On May 22, 2007, representatives of the following audience groups: “José Leonardo Chirinos”, “Satélite Popular”, “27 de Febrero”, “Fabricio Ojeda”, “Josefa Camejo”, “Observación”, “Yaracoop”, “Yurikli”, “La Voz que se Ve”, “Ojo Visor” and “AIPO”, the CTI Casa de Alimentación and Radio Comunitaria San Bernardino, parties unaffiliated with RCTV, filed a petition of constitutional amparo with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, in conjunction with a petition seeking unspecified injunctive relief. These were filed against the MINCI, the MPPTI, and the Venezuelan Public Television Foundation (TVes). The case was registered as No. 07-0720. Because of speeches made by public officials, the parties filing these petitions with the Supreme Court alleged that the new station, which would be broadcasting its programming via the spectrum used by RCTV, did not have the infrastructure, broadcasting equipment and repeaters necessary to ensure nationwide coverage of its broadcasts. Their understanding was that “the National Executive ha[d] not taken all the necessary measures […] to ensure that all citizens nationwide would be able to enjoy the new public service television station’s broadcasts starting on May 28, 2007, as it ha[d] repeatedly announced, creating a legitimate expectation [of] their entitlement to receive quality public service television.” The audience groups filing these petitions were asking the Court to protect their fundamental rights to legitimate trust, to nondiscrimination, and to receive a quality public service. Therefore, they requested, inter alia, that the Constitutional Chamber issue an injunction to give TVes temporary access to and temporary use and operation of the equipment that RCTV had been using to broadcast, and use of the portion of the radio 84 electric spectrum, irrespective of which parties owned or were in possession of it. 90. On Friday, May 25, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber delivered decision No. 956, wherein i) it agreed to hear the petition of amparo filed against the three respondents, describing it as an action seeking protection of collective and diffuse interests, and ii) issued a temporary injunction under which the use of assets owned by RCTV –such as “high frequency waves, teleports for broadcasting, transmitters, auxiliary television equipment, auxiliary power and climate control equipment, towers, antennas, broadcasting booths, station booths, perimeter fencing and electrical connections”—would be 85 temporarily assigned to CONATEL. Under that decision, CONATEL had to agree to use those assets for TVes. The Constitutional Chamber also ordered that interested parties be notified of its decision by a notification posted in one of the most widely circulated newspapers in Venezuela. The decision emphasized that “because this is an action to protect diffuse interests, intervening parties may only 86 introduce evidence pertaining to the allegations made by the parties with which they side.” 91. Similarly, on May 24, 2007, citizens José Félix Peralta, José Miguel Ferrer Pérez and Jorge Enrique Larrazábal, and the audience group Oyentes Interactivos de la Radio [Interactive Radio Listeners] (OIR), filed a brief with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court containing a suit for protection of diffuse and collective interests, in conjunction with a petition for unspecified injunctive relief. The respondents named in the petition were the President of the Republic and the Minister of the People’s Power for Telecommunications and Information, who was also director of CONATEL. The case was registered as No. 07-0731. The plaintiffs alleged that the eventual shutdown of RCTV, which was close at hand judging from the speeches delivered by the respondents, would seriously and unlawfully restrict the public’s right to freedom of expression and information, by denying it one of the television 84 Annex 64, Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. 85 Annex 64, Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. 86 Annex 64, Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 78. In a separate opinion, Justice Pedro Rafael Rondón Haaz expressed disagreement with the injunctive relief ordered by the Constitutional Chamber. He stated, inter alia, the following: i) “the continuity of the [public television] service would have been guaranteed to much greater effect if the injunctive relief would have permitted the current operator of that portion of the radio-electric spectrum to remain in operation on a provisional basis, until the decision on this case is handed down”; ii) the injunctive relief ordered “means that one element of [RCTV’s] right to property (i.e., use) is being taken away in the case of the assets assigned to the State, without explaining the legal grounds for that measure; and iii) although the assignment of the assets to the State is said to be a temporary measure, the length of time is not specified. Dissenting Vote of Justice Pedro Rafael Rondón Haaz to Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007. Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Mayo/956-250507-07-0720..htm.