NTC owes due process; telcos owe better service

That is why the NTC’s latest action against Globe Telecom Inc., Smart Communications Inc. and DITO Telecommunity Corp. must be carefully scrutinized.

The NTC claimed its September 2026 validation found no improvement in previously identified mobile broadband deficiencies and consequently imposed a ₱100,000 daily penalty on each operator through show-cause orders. The Philippine Chamber of Telecommunication Operators (PCTO), the umbrella organization of the telcos, questioned whether the operators were given sufficient opportunity to examine and contest the findings. It cited undisclosed methodologies, metrics, parameters, and testing conditions.

There’s no doubt their objection is legitimate.

The Supreme Court has already made clear in Globe Telecom vs NTC that the Commission’s authority to investigate compliance is distinct from its authority to impose fines. While the NTC may exercise certain enforcement powers without a prior hearing, the imposition of a fine requires notice and hearing. The Court described notice and hearing as essential elements of administrative due process.

In this ruling, it’s clear that regulation must be firm, but it must also be lawful.

The NTC should disclose the evidentiary and technical foundations of its findings sufficiently for the affected operators to understand, verify, and contest them. Doing so does not weaken regulation. It strengthens the legitimacy of enforcement and protects the NTC itself from the charge that it acted arbitrarily.

But while questions have been raised over NTC’s perceived arbitrary acts, due process must never become an excuse for poor telecommunications service.

Telcos have obligations to the public they serve. Customers do not pay monthly subscriptions, purchase load and data packages, or pay other telecommunications charges merely to receive assurances that their networks will eventually improve. They pay for usable, reliable connectivity.

The telecommunications industry is also a business. Companies invest heavily in infrastructure, assume substantial operational risks and deserve reasonable returns. But commercial interests do not extinguish public obligations. If customers are paying for a service, the service must be delivered at a quality reasonably consistent with what was promised and required by law and regulation.

Thus, if the NTC’s procedure is deficient, the telcos have legitimate avenues to challenge it. They may contest the findings, seek reconsideration and pursue judicial remedies where appropriate. The courts exist precisely to determine whether government agencies have acted within the bounds of their authority. The Supreme Court itself has emphasized that judicial review remains an essential check on administrative power.

But while telcos are quick to demand due process by contesting a penalty, they must not set aside the continuing complaints of poor services. While their legal concern is legitimate, they should not use this as a smokescreen for poor services.

For why should a show-cause order become necessary at all if customers consistently receive quality service for which they pay?

Therefore, the NTC must follow due process and telcos must deliver quality service to compensate for the subscriptions paid by its customers.

Neither obligation cancels the other.

In a nation governed by law like ours, the government must regulate lawfully and businesses entrusted with serving the public must perform responsibly.

Due process is indispensable, and quality service is non-negotiable.