Trolling PLDT, Globe, Smart and Sun!
What arguments did PLDT et. Al. present that will convince the Supreme Court to go back on its June 28, 2011 decision that defines the term “capital” in the constitutional provision limiting foreign ownership of domestic public utilities to 40%.
In the controversial decision, The SC held that the term “capital” in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution refers only to shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors (termed as common shares) and NOT the total capital stock composed of “common” (voting capable shares) + “preferred” (nonvoting capable shares).
And so the SC ordered the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to only consider “common shares” when measuring the foreign ownership ratio of PLDT, and then determine if the telco violated Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution and if it did, impose the appropriate sanctions under the law.
Troll: It’s really easy why the SC wound up with its decision which is based on common sense – control of a company lies with shareholders who have voting shares. So if foreigners have a majority of the voting shares, then they have direct control, which makes PLDT a foreign controlled utility.
Chief Justice Renato Corona disclosed that several parties have already warned him about the possible economic repercussions of the SC decision which is why it should be revisited (to add to this gloom and doom chorus, PLDT Chairman Manuel V. Pangilinan issued a warning about the “very serious adverse repercussions” on the country’s economy of the ruling if it is not reversed).
The Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) filled a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) against the SC decision. The stock regulator declared that the economy may lose more than P630B in allowable foreign investments if the SC decision is implemented.
It all starts with Wilson Gamboa. The esteemed human rights lawyer filled a complaint seeking to annul the sale of 111,415 PLDT common shares owned by the government to Hong Kong-based First Pacific Co. Ltd. @ P25.2B.
Wilson argued that the sale violates the constitutional limitation on foreign ownership of a public utility.
Wilson Gamboa died last year. And so his son Lauro took over.
Lauro decided to leave it up to the petitioners-in-intervention, Pablito Sanidad and Arno Sanidad as well as the Solicitor General to convince the Supreme Court to sustain its position on the case.
Sad that Lauro is leaving the fight to others.