Former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has raised serious legal concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed Konektadong Pinoy (KP) bill, a key component of the government's digital transformation agenda.

In a column published 21 July, Panganiban described Senate Bill 2103 as "nobly aimed but constitutionally flawed," citing potential violations of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article XII, Section 17.

This provision empowers the government to temporarily take over or direct the operations of privately owned public utilities or businesses affected by public interest during times of national emergency.

Panganiban warned that under the current version of the bill, foreign-based data transmission players could operate in the Philippines without establishing any physical infrastructure or operational presence in the country. He argued this would weaken the state's ability to respond effectively in emergency situations.

"The concern is not merely regulatory; it is existential," Panganiban wrote. "Without the ability to assert control in emergencies, the State’s constitutional tools become ceremonial, not functional."

He also pointed to Section 14 of the proposed law, which he said grants preferential treatment to satellite operators. This section would allow satellite providers to connect directly to broadband networks and use radio spectrum without partnering with local public telecommunications entities, an exemption not extended to terrestrial operators.

"This free connectivity bypasses licensing conditions historically imposed on terrestrial operators and effectively exempts satellite players from obligations others must meet," he added.

Panganiban stressed that while the Constitution permits legal classifications under the Equal Protection Clause, such classifications must be based on substantial distinctions relevant to the law's purpose.

"Both satellite and terrestrial entities perform the same essential function — delivering data services to the public," he asserted. "There is no reason why satellite entities should be exempt from the same regulatory oversight."

The former Chief Justice further criticized Section 19 of the bill, which declares a policy of technological neutrality, arguing it undermines its own intent by favoring one technology platform over another without sufficient justification.

"A law that favors one delivery platform over another, absent a valid rationale, is both internally inconsistent and constitutionally abhorrent," he stated.

While acknowledging the necessity of improving internet access, Panganiban underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional order.

"The challenge for our esteemed legislators, then, is to navigate the shifting landscape of technology without abandoning the steady compass of constitutional order," he said.

Aside from Panganiban, several telecommunications stakeholders have also expressed concern over the bill, particularly the two-year compliance window, which they argue is insufficient to meet cybersecurity standards.

Despite the mounting legal and sectoral concerns, the Department of Information and Communications Technology remains confident the Konektadong Pinoy Bill will be enacted, downplaying fears about its implications for national security and constitutional integrity.