The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) has recently imposed a 30-day suspension against Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI) for violating its legislative franchise. This decision comes as a result of the NTC’s deference to the House of Representatives, which holds authority over matters related to the grant, amendment, extension, or revocation of franchises.
SMNI, through its lawyer Rolex Suplico, has expressed its disagreement with the suspension order, citing a violation of due process. Suplico argues that the network should have been given an opportunity to present its case in court, rather than having the decision imposed upon them. He further criticizes the NTC for surrendering its quasi-judicial powers to the House, stating that it is a significant breach of protocol.
Interestingly, SMNI claims that it has not received an official copy of the decision. Suplico questions the urgency and haste in delivering the order, emphasizing that it should have been addressed directly to the lawyer who filed the application for the network’s operation. He questions why the NTC did not follow proper procedure and why they resorted to such a rushed approach.
ACT Teachers Rep. Francisca “France” Castro supports the suspension order, viewing it as a necessary measure to address the numerous violations committed by SMNI. Castro argues that the network poses a threat to press freedom itself, as it promotes violence, disinformation, and intolerance. She hopes that accountability measures will be taken against SMNI, its hosts, executives, and owners, including Pastor Apollo Quiboloy himself, who she believes have abused the network as a tool for the Dutertes and the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict.
Salvador Panelo, former President Rodrigo Duterte’s chief legal counsel and an SMNI host, publicly announced the ruling on the network. The ruling was also streamed on the page “Totoong Boses ng Bayan.” Panelo revealed that the NTC received a copy of House Resolution 189 on December 12, which called for the suspension of SMNI’s operation. The resolution had been adopted by the House a day earlier.
According to the NTC, SMNI violated three provisions in RA 11422, the law that granted the network its legislative franchise. These violations include deliberately spreading false information, engaging in the sale, lease, transfer, grant of usufruct, or assignment of the franchise, and dispersal of ownership. As a result, the NTC has ordered SMNI to provide a written explanation within 15 days, justifying why it should not face sanctions for these violations.
In addition to the written explanation, the NTC has summoned SMNI to a hearing on January 4, 2024, at 10 a.m. This hearing will provide an opportunity for SMNI to present evidence and arguments in its defense.
It is worth noting that the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) also recently suspended two SMNI shows, “Laban Para sa Bayan” and Duterte’s show, “Gikan sa Masa, Para Sa Masa,” following complaints received regarding certain episodes. SMNI has stated that it intends to appeal this decision.
Salvador Panelo has condemned the suspension of these two programs, describing it as a “brazen attack” on press freedom. He argues that the decision is arbitrary and an abuse of regulatory power, asserting that it has no place in a democratic society.
This recent suspension of SMNI highlights the ongoing challenges faced by media organizations in upholding press freedom. As the network prepares for its hearing, the outcome will undoubtedly have significant implications not only for SMNI but also for the broader landscape of media in the Philippines.
Source: The Manila Times
