Here’s the thing.
The 1987 Constitution states that any media company in the Philippinesmust be 100 percent owned and controlled by Filipinos. In the even that a foreigner is given even just a decimal of control or ownership, then that Media Company violates the control restriction provision in the constitution.
This is what Rodrigo Duterte, our president, has maintained in a number of interviews since the news of Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) revocation of Rappler’s license broke out days back. According to him, Rappler is owned and controlled by foreigners. With a conviction that seems almost like rage, he lambasted Rappler for being so critical of him when in fact, they are in violation of the Philippine constitution.
The directors and shareholders of Rappler are made up 100 percent of Filipinos.
When they were accused of being owned by Americans, Rappler debunk those lies that were being hurled at them. They clarified that they have received financial commitments from foreign investors but that these foreign investors, simply put, invested solely because they believe in what Rapplerdoes.
These companies are North Base Mediaand Omidyar Network. They invested in Rappler through a financial instrument called Philippine Depository Receipts which, if one would research one would learn, does not grant “ownership”. And since PDRs do not grant ownership, a company, a media company like Rappler couldn’t be guilty of violating the constitution. Something that is contrary to what Duterte suggests, and believes.
He says that Malacañan has nothing to do with SEC’s revocation of Rappler’s license, but that the SEC is in the right for doing so. Interestingly enough, the SEC’s decision itself revealed that it was the Office of the Solicitor General that had Rappler investigated.
They conducted their investigation. They found nothing wrong with the PDRs issued to North Base Media, but they found a glitch in the ones issued to Omidyar Network. The PDRs issued to Omidyar Network had provisions that granted a bit of control on Rappler. The PDRs showed Rappler agreeing to engage in a “good faith discussion” with Omidyar before changing their articles of incorporation or by-laws.
One might wonder, what is actually there to discuss? And why would Rappler give Omidyar that semblance of control?
On the other hand, there is also this thing we call “cure period”, something that allows any party who breaches a contract to remedy it without penalty. A lawyer interviewed by Rappler cited the case against PLDT (Gamboa v Teves), it ended with the Supreme Court ruling that the said company involved be allowed to remedy the situation.
This was an option that was not extended to Rappler, and should we even be surprised?
The option, by far, that was laid down for them by Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque is that Rappler, its journalists, in the event they lose their license to operate can still cover news as bloggers under Assistant Secretary Mocha Uson.
Duterte and his minions can deny all they want. But we know better. We know that they are crippling the country’s democracy in all ways.
They can paint SEC’s revocation of Rappler’s license as justice meted. But obviously, from the investigation down to the decision, their acts are oozing with malice.