NTC commissioners asked to inhibit themselves from SMNI case

Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI) on Thursday asked three National Telecommunication Commission (NTC) commissioners to inhibit themselves from its case following the suspension of the network’s operations.

In a six-page motion to inhibit filed before the NTC, SMNI legal counsels Mark Tolentino and Rolex Suplico asked NTC Commissioner Ella Blanca Lopez, Deputy Commissioner Jon Paulo Salvahan, and Deputy Commissioner Alvin Bernardo Blanco to inhibit themselves in the case of the broadcasting network.

“A reading of the caption of the case will show that it is indeed this Honorable Commission, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial powers, which will ultimately rule and decide on the show cause order. In the same breadth and manner, it is also this Honorable Commission which is the complainant against the herein respondent,” the motion read.

SMNI argued that the dual position of the NTC violates due process.

“In the instant case… appearance of impartiality can never be obtained with the dual function of this Honorable Commission, that being the judge and complainant at the same time. With this, the respondent cannot expect an impartial judgment from this Honorable Commission as judge and complainant,” the motion read.

“It is naturally expected that the ruling of the Honorable Commission will always be in favor of the complainant, which is also itself,” it added.

This came after the NTC imposed a 30-day suspension on the operations of SMNI over reported violations of the terms and conditions of its franchise. The network was given 15 days from receipt of the order to show cause and explain in writing why it should not be administratively sanctioned.

Meanwhile, SMNI lawyers also asked the NTC to give them until January 20 to file a responsive pleading.

“Considering that the 15-day period covered the holiday season and since the respondent, through counsel will need time to address the show-cause order for purposes of filing an intelligent pleading, the respondent requests for an additional 15 days… within which to show why it should not be administratively sanctioned,” it said.

In an ambush interview following the administrative hearing, Suplico said they expressed concern and questioned why it was handled by a hearing officer.

“Ang public interest ay mataas dapat silang tatlo ang nag hear dito. So dinelegate nila ‘yan sa hearing officer. So kwinestyon namin, ano ba ang authority ng hearing officer para mag conduct ng hearing instead of the commissioner and her two deputies?” he said.

(Public interest in this case is high so it should have been heard by the three of them. They delegated it to a hearing officer. So we questioned the authority of the hearing officer in conducting the hearing instead of the commissioner and her two deputies.)

According to Suplico, the case has been submitted for resolution.

“We expect the decision anytime because it touches on the very core of our democracy, due process,” Suplico said.

“So sila ‘yung mag decide. ‘Yung mga commissioner, sila ang mag decide kasi ‘yung nag appear ngayon ‘yung hearing officer lang so tagapakinig lang siya but still, ipasa pa rin niya sa mga commissioners at commissioners ang mag decide kung mag inhibit sila,” Tolentino, meanwhile, said.

(They should decide. The commissioners should decide because the one that appeared today is the hearing officer. So he was only there to listen, but he would still leave the decision to the commissioners, and they would be the ones to decide if they will inhibit.)

Asked what would happen should the commissioners inhibit, Tolentino said the Department of Justice (DOJ) may assign another personality to preside over the case.

“Due process dictates the gold neutrality of an impartial judge and must appear to be impartial. So hindi lang sila (not only) impartial but must appear to be impartial. And we cannot expect due process in this office,” he said.

For his part, Suplico added that they could not expect justice from the NTC.?

“The NTC is the judge, the NTC is the complainant, the NTC is the executioner. We cannot expect justice from the NTC,” he said.

In December, the NTC received a copy of a resolution from the House of Representatives citing three violations allegedly made by SMNI — deliberately disseminating false information, the transfer of shares without prior Congressional approval, and failure to offer at least 30% of its outstanding stock.—RF, GMA Integrated News