Background on the Legislation and Key Players
During committee meetings and the plenary session of the Senate of the Republic, where the joint committees of Radio, Television and Cinematography; Communications and Transportation; and Legislative Studies approved the unified initiative of the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law by a majority, various senators from the majority bloc of the 4T have boasted that several provisions under scrutiny in this legislative product are already part of the current legal framework since 2014.
However, they overlook a crucial aspect: the nature of the authority responsible for interpreting and applying this law has changed dramatically. The IFT, despite its flaws and merits, remains an authority free from political influence. Its decisions have largely withstood pressure from the executive branch or political parties over its nearly 12 years of existence. While there are decisions that many would have preferred differently, no one can argue that these decisions were tainted by pressure from a cabinet member or the president himself.
The Significance of the New Regulatory Body: CRT
The substantial difference between the IFT and the newly proposed Comisión Reguladora de Telecomunicaciones (CRT) lies in a novel provision unthinkable within the context of an autonomous constitutional body. Article 23, which outlines removal causes for commissioned individuals, states in fraction I that they can be removed “When a simple majority of the Senators present or, during recesses, by the Permanent Commission, approves the removal request submitted by the Federal Executive.”
This provision introduces a constant threat against any commissioner’s tenure, restricting their ability to exercise regulatory tasks freely. The mere suggestion of deviating from the president’s desired course of action will always loom, as the Senators can use this “trump card” granted by Congress to remove commissioners without legal justification, requiring only a simple majority.
Loss of Autonomy and Risks to Freedom of Expression
The evident consequence is the complete absence of autonomy. The technical and managerial autonomy granted to the CRT by law will be hampered from day one. For instance, although Articles 10 and 208 may appear to grant the CRT authority over audience rights, such as suspending transmissions violating this law’s norms pending warning, the situation changes significantly when this power falls into the hands of commissioners aware that they must comply with orders from the presidential palace. This introduces a risk to freedom of expression that previously did not exist.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the main issue with the new telecom law? The primary concern revolves around the loss of autonomy for the regulatory body, the CRT, due to a novel provision allowing simple majority Senator approval for commissioner removal. This undermines their ability to exercise regulatory tasks freely and introduces risks to freedom of expression.
- Who are the key players involved? The main parties include senators from the 4T majority bloc and the proposed Comisión Reguladora de Telecomunicaciones (CRT). The existing Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) serves as a benchmark for comparing the new regulatory body.
- What is the significance of Article 23 in the new law? Article 23 outlines removal causes for commissioned individuals, including the controversial fraction I, which allows simple Senator majority approval for removal requests from the Federal Executive. This provision threatens commissioner independence and introduces risks to freedom of expression.
