SC sets oral argument on MVP appeal

MANILA, Philippines - Confronted by the possibility its ruling would cost the Philippines over P630 billion in foreign investments, the Supreme Court (SC) has set for oral argument the appeal of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) chairman Manuel V. Pangilinan over its decision last month ordering the review of foreign ownership in the telecommunications company.

SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the magistrates decided during a full-court session yesterday to call for an oral argument in resolving the motions for reconsideration filed by Pangilinan and the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) and motions of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and petitioner lawyer Wilson Gamboa.

Marquez, however, explained that the High Court has yet to set the date for the proceeding as it awaits the submission of all pleading by all parties in the case.

Last July 15, Pangilinan asked the high court to consider the possible repercussions of the ruling to businesses in the country: “If the Court does not reconsider, that unwarranted redefinition will have very serious adverse repercussions for the partially nationalized industries affected, the Philippine capital market, the Philippine economy in general and the country as a whole. There will be no telling if and how those severe consequences can be survived.”

Pangilinan contested SC’s ruling that the 40-percent limit to foreign ownership in local companies covers “capital,” which under Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers to shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors.

The PLDT chief argued that the 40-percent limit prescribed in the law covers the entire capital stock and not just the voting stocks – contrary to the ruling of the court.

He also cited as another basis the “1986 Constitutional Commission’s repeated rejection of proposals to replace the term ‘capital’ with more restricted and specific terms such as ‘voting capital’ or ‘controlling’ interest’ evinces an unmistakable intention to refer to all types of ‘capital’ and not just to ‘voting shares.”

Pangilinan also argued that the court purportedly usurped the administrative power of the Executive branch when it ordered SEC to review foreign ownership in PLDT. On the technical ground, Pangilinan stressed that the High Court should have instead dismissed the petition of human rights lawyer Wilson Gamboa for lack of jurisdiction since the elements for the mandamus action were not present and also for inherent flaw since PLDT and the SEC were not impleaded in the case.