Understanding Collegial Decision-Making at the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)

GMCR, INC.; SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP.; ISLA COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC., PETITIONERS, VS. BELL TELECOMMUNICATION PHILIPPINES, INC.; THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND HON. SIMEON L. KINTANAR IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 126496, April 30, 1997] COMMISSIONER SIMEON L. KINTANAR, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. BELL TELECOMMUNICATION PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 126526. APRIL 30, 1997]

Imagine a scenario where a single person dictates the future of telecommunications services in the Philippines. That’s precisely what was at stake in the landmark case involving GMCR, Smart Communications, BellTel, and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC). The central question: Is the NTC a collegial body, requiring decisions to be made by a majority vote, or can its Commissioner act unilaterally?

This case clarified the importance of collegial decision-making within regulatory bodies like the NTC. It affirmed that major decisions must be reached through a consensus, not by the sole discretion of one individual.

The Legal Foundation of Regulatory Bodies

In the Philippines, regulatory bodies like the NTC are governed by specific laws and regulations that define their powers and responsibilities. Understanding these laws is crucial to ensure these bodies operate within their legal boundaries.

Executive Order No. 546 is a key piece of legislation in this case. It established the NTC and outlined its structure, which includes a Commissioner and two Deputy Commissioners. While the EO doesn’t explicitly state that NTC is collegial, the Supreme Court interpreted the law in light of its historical context and the procedures it followed.

A “collegial body” means that decisions are made by a group of individuals, typically through a majority vote. The opposite would be a single-headed agency, where one person has the sole authority to make decisions.

Rule 15 of the Board of Communications Rules of Practice and Procedures is also relevant. Even though it predates EO 546, this rule was applied to the NTC. It states that orders, rulings, decisions, and resolutions must be reached with the concurrence of at least two regular members after deliberation and consultation.

Hypothetically, imagine a new regulation on internet service providers is proposed. If the NTC is a truly collegial body, all three commissioners must deliberate, and at least two must agree before the regulation can be implemented. If the Commissioner could act alone, the other two commissioners’ opinions would be irrelevant.

The Battle Over BellTel’s Application

The case arose from BellTel’s application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide nationwide telecommunications services. Several other telecommunications companies opposed this application.

Here’s a simplified timeline of events:

• BellTel filed its application with the NTC.
• The Common Carriers Authorization Department (CCAD) recommended approval based on technical feasibility.
• Two Deputy Commissioners agreed with the recommendation.
• However, Commissioner Kintanar did not sign the order granting provisional authority.
• BellTel filed motions to resolve the application, which were denied by Commissioner Kintanar.
• BellTel then filed a Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals.

BellTel argued that the NTC was a collegial body, and since two of the three commissioners supported the application, it should be approved. Commissioner Kintanar, however, maintained that he had the sole authority to make decisions.

The Solicitor General, representing the government, took a position against the NTC, arguing that it should be declared a collegial body. The Court of Appeals sided with BellTel and the Solicitor General.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasized the importance of a commission acting as a unified body. The Court stated, “The NTC acts through a three-man body, and the three members of the commission each has one vote to cast in every deliberation concerning a case or any incident therein that is subject to the jurisdiction of the NTC.”

The Court further stated that the Commissioner is not the NTC itself, and cannot act unilaterally. “Commissioner Kintanar is not the National Telecommunications Commission. He alone does not speak for and in behalf of the NTC.”

Implications for Telecommunications Regulation

This case has significant implications for how telecommunications regulations are made in the Philippines. It reinforces the principle of fairness and transparency by ensuring that decisions are not made arbitrarily by a single individual.

For telecommunications companies, this means that they can expect a more balanced and considered approach to regulatory matters. They can also take comfort in knowing that their applications and concerns will be reviewed by a panel of commissioners, rather than being subject to the whims of one person.

Key Lessons:

• Regulatory bodies like the NTC must operate as collegial bodies, with decisions made by a majority vote.
• A single commissioner cannot unilaterally make decisions that affect the telecommunications industry.
• Companies should be aware of the legal framework governing regulatory bodies and assert their rights accordingly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What does it mean for the NTC to be a “collegial body”?

A: It means that decisions are made by a group (in this case, the three commissioners) through a majority vote, rather than by one person acting alone.

Q: Why is it important for regulatory bodies to be collegial?

A: Collegiality promotes fairness, transparency, and accountability. It ensures that diverse perspectives are considered before decisions are made.

Q: What happens if one commissioner disagrees with the others?

A: The dissenting commissioner can state their reasons in writing, which becomes part of the official record.

Q: How does this ruling affect telecommunications companies?

A: It ensures that regulatory decisions are made in a more balanced and considered manner, protecting their rights and interests.

Q: Can a commissioner be held liable for making decisions outside of the collegial process?

A: Yes, they could potentially face legal challenges for acting beyond their authority.

ASG Law specializes in telecommunications law and regulatory compliance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.