Bulatlat asks court to void NTC order to block websites
An image posted by Bulatlat on Facebook.
A month after the government moved to have Bulatlat blocked from the internet, the alternative news outlet on Friday sought a court’s intervention by asking it to void the memorandum issued by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), which ordered the country’s internet service providers to restrict access to its site and that of several others.
Bulatlat filed a civil lawsuit in the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, through its legal counsel from the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), seeking the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction on the NTC’s June 8 memorandum.
Bulatlat, as plaintiff, used its registered name Alipato Media Center Inc.
Without legal authority
In its 11-page complaint, the independent news organization argued that the NTC’s order was ultra vires, or done without legal authority.
Named respondents were the NTC, the National Security Council and former national security adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr., who made the request to the NTC to block Bulatlat’s websites along with 27 other sites, such as that of Pinoy Weekly, progressive groups and self-exiled communist leader Jose Maria Sison.
In making the request, Esperon claimed that “communist terrorist groups” were making their presence online through those websites, therefore asking for the immediate blocking of those domains.
They said there was nothing under the 1979 Executive Order No. 546, which created the NTC, the 1995 Republic Act No. 7925 or the Public Telecommunications Policy Act, that gave the NTC the power to block websites as stated in its memorandum last month without securing a court order first.
“Being ultra vires, the NTC’s order to Philippine ISPs (internet service providers) to block Bulatlat.com, the other websites listed in the letter request of … Esperon, which formed an integral part of the questioned memorandum, is illegal,” the complaint read. “As such, it stands to be nullified by this court.”
