Despite Malacañang’s denial, there is no doubt that the decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission to revoke Rappler’s registration as a media entity is a press freedom issue.
The SEC arguments seem solid for a non-lawyer like me but I wonder, had Rappler been supportive of Duterte, would the Office of the Solicitor General have filed a case questioning the ownership of Rappler?
On the other hand, even if Duterte hated Rappler, if SEC didn’t find anything amiss in their corporate makeup, would it have moved for the kill?
Journalist turned lawyer Romel R. Bagares posted this comment on Facebook which generated an informative discussion among his fellow lawyers, many of them advocates of free expression and are active in fighting the proliferation of fake news.
Bagares said the Rappler case is “A great case on a question of foreign ownership. But a hard case because it involves free expression and a perceived anti-government media firm. A bad case because while cancellation is well within the law, SEC could just as well have ordered divestment.”
Bagares explained that Philippine Depository Receipts or PDRs, an issue which the SEC used against Rappler, are “investment instruments allowed by law as long as holders only have economic rights to them, and not owners’ rights.”
“You get ROIs (return on investments) from PDRs, that’s it,” he added.
In revoking the certificate of incorporation of Rappler, the SEC said Rappler and Omidyar Network through PDRs skirted the Constitutional requirement that media companies in the Philippines should be 100 percent Filipino-owned.
Omidyar Network is a philanthropic investment firm, which was founded by American entrepreneur Pierre Omidyar, also the founder of eBay, and his wife Pam.
The SEC said Rappler-Omidyar PDRs contain the “repugnant provision wherein “Rappler is required to seek approval of the (Omidyar Network) PDR Holders on corporate matters.”
Bagares explained that the Omidyar PDRs give it the right to block any amendments to Rappler’s charter. Such a right only belongs to a share owner under the Philippine Corporation Code. Constitution says media should be 100-percent Phillippine-owned.
In the FB discussion, journalist Robert JA Basilio Jr. asked Bagares: “Meaning — generally, PDRs are legal except that the Omidyar PDR has special provisions reserved only for shareholders? Correct?”
To which Bagares replied: Yes yes yes yes yes!
Centerlaw, a non-stock, non-profit organization that works for the recognition and application of international law norms — specifically those relating to human rights, humanitarian law, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press — as automatic and self-executory parts of Philippine law, issued a statement saying “The alleged failure of Rappler to comply with constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership of Philippine media entities aside, the SEC’s decision is tantamount to prior restraint, and therefore comes with the heavy presumption of unconstitutionality.”
Centerlaw, currently headed by Joel Butuyan, was co-founded by Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque, who has now resigned from the organization.
Centerlaw stressed the irony that “The same constitution that prescribes restrictions on ownership of Philippine mass media is also the very constitution that has placed free expression at the topmost rungs of constitutional freedoms.”
The group also said that “what the SEC should have done was to give Rappler an opportunity to correct its ownership structure. Instead, the SEC got down to business right away with guns blazing.”
rappler’s license not renewed. fine. maria rezza can always apply for another license and operate another on line news.
a legal fight can very well cost millions with maybe not a favorable result, and could well be waste of maria rezza’s good money. think now, please. put ego aside and pick up the pieces. those that cannot be salvage, say bye to them. freedom of speech should not limit one’s creativity and ingenuity. one door closes, another door opens.
Rappler said they struck out the safeguard provision in the Omidyar PDR and it was concurred by Omidyar itself and submitted the revision to SEC. But instead of meeting with Rappler to discuss the modification, SEC, in bad faith, threw out the submission and instead published their revocation decision in their website.
-The Supreme Court has already ruled that non-voting Preferred Shares and PDRs do not constitute ownership.
-In the case of Japanese firm NTT DoCoMo’s ownership in PLDT, The SC has determined NTT exceeded the 40% limit thus ordered the confiscation of the excess in favor of GRP. It did not revoke the registration of either PLDT or NTT.
-Many companies, including those in media also have issued PDRs: ICTSI, PLDT, GMA7, ABS-CBN, TV 5, Maynilad, NGCP, Philex, etc Most of the preceding names are owned by Indonesia’s Salim Group and managed by Manny Pangilinan. Will they be included by NBI in their anti-dummy investigation of Rappler? Will SEC revoke their licenses, too based on ownership?
-The constitution is explicit yet simple in stating that media companies shall be 100% owned and MANAGED by Filipinos. SEC managed to twist the constitutional requirement when its rules equated management with “control”. The SEC in the past was lenient with companies’ violations; many companies,for example, Lucio Tan’s conglomerate would rather pay the pittance of fines than regularly submitting the required periodic financial statements. Has the SEC revoked any of Tan’s registrations?
-If this is not political harassment, I don’t know what is.
businesses that issued pdrs are mostly in sympathy with maria reza, but really?
they make noise about the curtailment of freedom of speech and how bad it can be. but noise only, no action. just noise. could be that they’re afraid they’d be next to lose registration, iisa-isahin sila. the ax will fall on them if they wait long enough.
but, if they take initiative and not wait for the ax to fall, and act onerously: all for one, one for all, and all refusing to renew their registrations, hold their ground and boycott sec, I think, sec can be brought down on its knees and made to see the light.
collective action and not just mere words of sympathy may work against sec.
After I posted my comment above TV5 the next day clised its Rappler-like online news InterAksyon. They’re probably feeling unsettled that Rappler is being compared to them.
NBI also issued an invitation to Rappler for a cyber libel complaint of a businessman for an article published in 2012. Cyber libel law was enacted 2-3 years later. Ex Post Facto law is illegal in the Phils. Why did they even entertain the complaint. Harassment fo’ sho’.
Why do I get this feeling Vera Files is up next?
if the shoe fits . . . harassment is anybody’s game. as journalist, maria ressa know how that is played.
at the moment, maria ressa is being played on and she is reacting, badly I think. with nbi and doj seemingly determine to having her in a corner, time for maria ressa to assess and review her strats. she is her own worst enemy, her own cheer leader, her own pr and press consultant, her own spokesman,etc. it wont be long before the many roles she is taking on herself wears her out, burns her out and her health may well suffer for it. depression is not far behind and if she succumbs and bows out – nbi will be happy, doj as well, the govt ecstatic, their work cut out for them.
maria ressa ought to call the reinforcement, or take a leaf from chief justice sereno, hire lawyers who can fight in the front line and save herself for the bigger fight ahead.