SMNI appeals Indefinite suspension

MANILA, Philippines — Lawyers of Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI) filed a motion for reconsideration yesterday asking the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to reverse its decision to impose an indefinite suspension on the operation of the media network.

Aside from the motion for reconsideration, a separate petition to allow a pre-hearing conference was filed at the NTC, according to counsel Mark Tolentino.

Tolentino noted that under NTC procedures, a pre-hearing conference is allowed on highly contentious administrative complaints.

In a six-page order to cease and desist operation, NTC Commissioner Ella Blanca Lopez ordered an indefinite suspension on operations of SMNI until a final ruling is issued by the commission.

The NTC has also directed SMNI to submit a written explanation after it failed to strictly follow the 30 days suspension order.

Lopez also directed concerned NTC regional directors who exercise territorial jurisdiction in areas where SMNI is operating to immediately and strictly implement the cease and desist order.

Rolex Suplico has said that the indefinite suspension issued by the NTC only covers the radio and broadcast stations of SMNI, adding that its social media will continue to operate.

The legal team of SMNI maintained that the cease and desist order of NTC violated due process under Article III, Section One of the 1987 Constitution.

“Under the Bill of Rights, no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty and property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. This order was issued without notice of hearings. In fact, the bases of the order were non-existent,” Suplico said.

He said that among the issues raised by the NTC include SMNI violating the 30-day suspension when its two stations in Western Visayas, particularly in Aklan and Roxas City, operated despite the order.

“The order stated that the Roxas City station operated which in fact it did not. Number 2, it stated we did not file an answer when in fact, we filed an answer. The weird part is that it seems the NTC used our filing of the motion to inhibit and motion to file a bill of particulars against us as if