Taxpayer asks DICT to clarify status of Mislatel
The Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) has been asked to clarify the status of the award of the third telco slot to Mindanao Islamic Telephone Co. (Mislatel) after reports said the company had not yet paid the P25.7-billion performance bond to the government.
Taxpayer Marlon Anthony Tonson questioned the eligibility of Mislatel and accused the DICT of disregarding the rules and extending “partiality and unwarranted benefits” to the company amid debate in Congress on the validity of its franchise.
Tonson earlier questioned in the Supreme Court the selection process for the country’s third telco player.
He cited the failure of Mislatel to submit all required documents for its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to be able to start operations.
Under the terms of reference set by the National Telecommunications Commission, Mislatel has only 90 days from the issuance of a confirmation order to submit all necessary papers for the issuance of the certificate, he said.
Until Feb. 17
Article continues after this advertisementTonson noted that the confirmation order naming Mislatel as the third telco was issued by the selection committee on Nov. 19 last year, which means the consortium of Udenna Corp. of Davao businessman Dennis Uy and China Telecom had until Feb. 17 to comply with all the requirements.
Article continues after this advertisement“May we know the status of the submissions of the necessary documents by the confirmed new major player?” Tonson asked in his two-page letter to Information and Communications Secretary Eliseo Rio Jr. on Feb. 25.
Through his legal counsel Arnel Victor Valeña, Tonson claimed that Mislatel was unable to meet all requirements because it did not submit a formal declaration from the House of Representatives of its concurrence to the recent Senate resolution approving its franchise.
“Considering that the 90-day [period] for the [Mislatel] to submit the documents has lapsed, and they failed to submit this formal declaration that you required, then what is the implication? Clearly, [Mislatel] failed to comply with the requirements of the [terms of reference],” Tonson’s letter said.
