SC urged to put squeeze on SEC on PLDT ownership issue

MANILA, Philippines – The lawyer who claims that the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) violated the constitutional provision on maximum foreign ownership, asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to compel the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) to reveal the results of its investigation on whether the telecom giant did go beyond the maximum 40% foreign equity rule.

Wilson Gamboa, in a three-page motion dated July 18, 2011,  claimed that that many stakeholders of PLDT, as well as interested bystanders, wanted to know if PLDT violated the 1987 Constitution, and what possible sanctions can be imposed on it if it did..

He told the high court that there should a time frame set for the SEC after its repeated failure to perform its duties under the law. He offered that July 31 would be the most favorable time.

Last month, the high court said the SEC should be on guard against violations of the nationality requirement stated under the Constitution. It told SEC to use only voting, or common shares, and exclude preferred or non-voting shares, in assessing the capital stock of the firm.

Section 11, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution states: “No franchise, certificate or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens nor shall such franchise, certificate or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than 50 years.”

Gamboa sought to annul the sale of the government’s stake in Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation (PTIC), part owner of PLDT to First Pacific Company, a HongKong based investment firm of the Salims of Indonesia and NTT DoCoMo, the wireless subsidiary of NTT of Japan.

With the sale, Gamboa said First Pacific owned at least 61.8 percent of PLDT, breaching the foreign ownership limits under the Constitution.