[VETO OR VALIDATE?] Why President Marcos Must Veto the Konektadong Pinoy Bill

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. must withhold his signature on the Konektadong Pinoy Bill—not because we oppose expanding internet access, but precisely because this bill, in its current form, fails to do so safely, equitably, or strategically.

Red Flags Over Connectivity: Critics warn the Konektadong Pinoy Bill could leave the nation exposed to cybersecurity threats and foreign interference—urging President Marcos to veto the measure. (Illustration: Riz)

While cloaked in the laudable goal of bridging the digital divide, this proposed law presents more red flags than solutions.

First, the process behind this legislation raises serious transparency concerns. Major industry stakeholders, including the Philippine Chamber of Telecommunications Operators (PCTO) and the Philippine Association of Private Telecommunications Companies (PAPTELCO), were not consulted during the finalities of this bill.

Their exclusion is not merely a procedural oversight; it is a fundamental failure to engage the very entities that maintain and protect our digital infrastructure. Bypassing such key voices betrays the very principles of democratic deliberation and casts a long shadow over the bill’s integrity.

Even more alarming is how the Konektadong Pinoy Bill sidesteps regulation.

Under the measure, new entrants in the data transmission sector—be they satellite providers, cable landing station operators, or international gateway facility builders—will no longer be required to secure a congressional franchise.

Instead, they will merely need to register with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

Reports reveal U.S. officials leveraged control of Elon Musk’s satellite network in talks with Ukraine over critical minerals—highlighting how digital infrastructure can now be weaponized in geopolitical power plays. (Photo: NASA)

This is not deregulation for efficiency—it’s deregulation for expedience. And it leaves our country wide open to foreign interference, especially from state-backed actors exploiting legal loopholes.

As the PCTO warned, this opens the door to Trojan horse operators—shell companies potentially backed by hostile foreign governments—who can now control critical information infrastructure (CII) with virtually zero scrutiny.

In an age where data transmission is akin to digital sovereignty, such laxity is dangerous, especially given the heightened geopolitical tensions in the West Philippine Sea and broader Indo-Pacific region.

Consider recent events: U.S. officials reportedly used control over Elon Musk’s Starlink system as leverage in their negotiations with Ukraine over access to critical minerals. That was a stark reminder that control over digital networks is now a strategic weapon.

Do we really want to invite foreign-controlled satellite firms to operate here without cybersecurity vetting or government oversight?

And therein lies another fatal flaw: cybersecurity. The bill does not require new players to be cyber-secure before operating. In a world increasingly plagued by state-sponsored cyberattacks and ransomware assaults, this omission is indefensible.

The idea of giving new data transmission industry participants (DTIPs) a grace period of 1 to 3 years before adhering to cybersecurity standards is not just shortsighted—it’s reckless.

Then there’s the failure to meet the bill’s own mandate of closing the digital divide. Contrary to its promise, the bill does not obligate new entrants to serve unserved or underserved areas.

This will only encourage cherry-picking: new players will likely gravitate toward urban centers to recover their investments, duplicating existing infrastructure and leaving remote communities behind.

There are also constitutional and legal concerns. The bill includes spectrum management provisions that are unrelated to its core subject of data transmission, violating the Constitution’s “one subject, one bill” rule. Furthermore, the bill creates a two-tiered regulatory regime.

Existing telcos must still comply with franchise and Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) requirements, while new DTIPs are exempt. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and undermines fair competition.

Moreover, the bill effectively weakens the National Telecommunications Commission, stripping it of its quasi-judicial authority and reducing it to a rubber stamp.

It also threatens to erode technology neutrality by favoring satellite technologies over other innovations and introduces the “Dig Once” policy without sufficient safeguards, raising security risks around sabotage and critical infrastructure disruption.

In a time when digital access is foundational to national development, we do need reform—but not like this. Reform must be deliberative, inclusive, and future-proofed.

We must protect the sanctity of our digital borders just as fiercely as our physical ones. We cannot afford to adopt policies that welcome foreign dominance under the guise of market liberalization.

Critics urge PBBM to send the bill back to Congress for much-needed revisions. (Photo: PCO Facebook)

To be clear: this is not a call to retreat from innovation or foreign investment. Rather, it is a call for responsible modernization—the kind that bolsters our cybersecurity, protects local industries, honors constitutional checks and balances, and genuinely empowers the underserved.

President Marcos still has time. He can veto this bill and call on Congress to craft a better version—one that retains regulatory frameworks for entities operating critical infrastructure, mandates Day 1 cybersecurity compliance, restores proper regulatory oversight, and ensures investment flows to unserved communities.

The path to a digitally inclusive future should not come at the expense of national security or legal integrity. If we’re truly serious about building a “Konektadong Pinoy,” we must connect not just more people—but the right dots.