OSG denies SEC claim on PLDT issue

MANILA, Philippines - Solicitor General Joel Cadiz denied yesterday misrepresenting the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) before the Supreme Court (SC) in the case involving foreign ownership in the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT).

Cadiz told The STAR by phone that their submission to the high court favoring its ruling that the term “capital” in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers only to the voting shares of stock was the position of his office - not of SEC.

“It was our position in the OSG, which we deemed was necessary to submit because this issue on ‘capital’ was the heart of the decision.

Our motion and manifestation was clear on that - it (stand on the issue) was not in representation of SEC,” he explained.

“We didn’t defy the SEC,” he stressed.

The chief state lawyer revealed that his deputies had earlier met with SEC officials to map out the commission’s answer to the SC ruling on the petition of lawyer Wilson Gamboa that held that 40-percent limit of foreign ownerships in local companies covers only voting shares of stocks and not preferred shares.

He recalled that in that meeting, the SEC executives said they would not want to comment on the issue on “capital” and just discussed the technical aspects of the case. He said this was manifested in a letter sent to OSG by the commission.

“But we submitted our opinion on this issue in our motion and manifestation because it was the main issue and substance of the case. It’s necessary to tackle that,” Cadiz explained.

Cadiz pointed out that his office submitted its position on the “capital” issue - independent from the stand of SEC - “as a tribune of the people.”

He added that the OSG, which is mandated by law to represent government agencies in cases, may even reject the position of its clients and formulate its own to be able to win a case.

“This is really about the interest of the people,” he stressed, referring to OSG’s position on the issue.

Cadiz said he would submit clarification with the SC once ordered to comment on the motion filed by SEC last Friday.