The most significant aspect of the Konektadong Pinoy Act, I believe, is that it frees data transmission from franchise requirements. The urgent bill, now awaiting the President’s signature, will make internet connectivity more accessible by lowering barriers to entry for new market participants and encouraging competition.
Most immediate among the benefits this proposed law brings is that all public schools will be connected to the internet by the end of this year. Millions of young Filipinos will gain from this.
In a world where the highways of information determine ability to compete, the Philippines suffers from decades of imperfect policy. Our internet coverage is spotty, slow, unreliable and expensive. In the region, Filipinos pay the most for the slowest service. Again, our consumers are made to pay for bad policy.
This is simply unjust. It condemns the next generation to information scarcity. It sets back e-governance. It traps us in the past.
This cannot go on.
The reason we have fallen way below par in this information age is the persistence of statism over the free market. It discouraged investments that will improve transmission efficiency. It forced our consumers to pay more for less.
The requirement for a franchise is often a devious instrument that enabled the rise of monopolies and oligopolies in many aspects of our lives. Franchise requirements imposed wantonly were preferred by the oligarchic gatekeepers because it was a source of bribes. There was no technical reason for subjecting data transmission to be subject to franchise requirements in the first place.
Not surprisingly, those who now oppose the opening up of the data transmission to free competition mainly rely on regurgitating old arguments from the discredited national security state ideology of the last century. All the so-called national security concerns raised by those opposing this draft law are more than adequately addressed by other existing laws such as the Amended Public Service Act (RA 11659) and the Foreign Investments Act (RA 11647).
Against the national security bogeyman raised mainly by entrenched interests, the proposed law guarantees non-discriminatory treatment of all players, anti-monopoly safeguards, transparent pricing and market information as well as the prohibition of anti-competitive practices. All these will bring in new investments, raise our data transmission sector to global standards and benefit our consumers through lower costs.
The institutionalized collaboration between the National Telecommunications Commission, the Department of Information and Communications Technologies and the Philippine Competition Commission ensures adequate checks and balances among the regulatory agencies. In the end, Filipino consumers will have a wider spectrum of choices for service providers to choose from.
The benefits far outweigh the imagined concerns.
This draft law was certified urgent by the Marcos administration. This is the reason it hurdled our complex legislative mill with relative ease. Yet powerful interests appear to have succeeded in keeping the draft law unsigned to this point.
Unintended
The discussion on possible ethical issues involved when doctors become involved in what resembles multi-level marketing schemes appear to have caused distress among sections of the medical community. This was unintended.
Some doctors expressed the view that doctors investing in pharmaceutical companies ought not to be rashly condemned as being in a conflict-of-interest situation. Others thought the trust of patients for their doctors is being unduly undermined. Still others felt that the prestige of an entire community of professionals was being degraded.
Some floated the conspiracy theory that a war between pharmaceutical companies had broken out and the doctors had become collateral damage.
The distress felt by some sectors of the medical community became all the more heightened when one commentator made claims about excessive professional fees charged by a respected surgeon at the Philippine Heart Center. This event precipitated formal statements issued by medical associations.
The first statement was jointly issued by the Philippine College of Surgeons, the Philippine Association of Thoracic, Cardiac and Vascular Surgeons Inc. and the Philippine Wound Care Society. The joint statement condemned the “public shaming of our Fellows or any member of the medical profession.”
This joint statement asked to “uphold the sanctity of the patient-doctor relationship and believe that concerns regarding medical care, including questions of professional fees, should be addressed through proper and respectful channels where all parties can be heard and the facts objectively evaluated.” The signatory medical associations offered their good offices to be the “proper and respectful channels.”
The Philippine College of Physicians (PCP) added its own statement to the rising chorus. The groups expressed their “deep concern over irresponsible social media posts spreading unverified information and unfounded claims against physicians.”
The PCP decried what it called “hurtful and potentially damaging posts” that “devalue the dedication and expertise that physicians bring to the health care system.” The group said “constructive dialogue – not public vilification – is the path to resolving concerns and improving our health care system.”
It is unfortunate that some of our doctors feel that there is a concerted campaign of bullying mounted against them. Perhaps they ought to take the initiative to open the dialogue they propose. There are several public forums that may be open for precisely this sort of dialogue.
There are some concerns, however, that touch on regulatory issues. Some of these concerns have been elevated to the Professional Regulatory Commission.
The Commission should not shirk from its responsibility to draw whatever ethical demarcations need to be drawn.