Sealand seeks extended hearings on PLDT-Digitel deal

MANILA, Philippines - Sealand Telecommunications Co. said it intends to file a motion before the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to allot more time for hearings on the acquisition by Philippine Long Distance and Telephone Co. (PLDT) of a majority stake in Digital Telecommunications Philippines Inc. (Digitel).

“The NTC should not act with undue haste in concluding the proceedings considering that the issue on hand is of national importance as it evolves around the control over infrastructure that plays a vital role in the country’s economy,” Sealand legal counsel Jose Ismael Valmores said.

Valmores noted that the NTC, in an order issued last June 11, had set the hearing of the case in the afternoon of June 21 for the presentation of PLDT and Digitel’s evidence and the cross examination of its witnesses.

Oppositors to PLDT-Digitel’s application for NTC approval of the deal may also present their own evidence and witnesses on the same afternoon and, if necessary, the hearing will continue in the afternoon of June 22, 2011.

“Setting aside only two afternoons for the presentation of witness and evidence is too short and clearly insufficient for all parties to present their evidence,” Valmores said.

Under the NTC’s rules of procedure, hearings normally start with a pre-hearing conference followed by the presentation of evidence by all parties involved.

Valmores pointed out that, under the NTC’s own rules of procedure, oppositors must be given enough time to scrutinize and examine the documentary evidence to be presented by the applicants (PLDT-Digitel).

The requirement of sufficient time is important to allow the oppositors to prepare a thorough and intelligent cross examination of the witnesses that will be presented by PLDT-Digitel to support their application.

“This becomes more relevant in the event the applicants fail to submit the judicial affidavits of their witnesses three days before the hearing (as required under the rules), and thus depriving oppositors an opportunity to examine the documents,” Valmores said.

He explained that the applicant, after resting his case, is required under the rules to submit a written formal offer of evidence. The opposing party is also given time to file his comment before presenting its own evidence and witnesses.