No tears for Rappler
Before everybody starts defining the closure of Rappler by the Securities and Exchange Commission as an assault on press freedom, it is best for everyone to first try to know and understand the circumstances behind the closure. Perhaps by knowing and understanding these circumstances, one will get to develop a much better understanding of what press freedom is, and why not every member of the press should be allowed to hide behind its awesome mantle.
Rappler may have been consistently critical of President Duterte. And true, Duterte has no love lost for Rappler. In fact he has openly despised the online media outlet on several occasions. One can even go out on a stretch and claim the Securities and Exchange Commission may have merely wanted to get into the good graces of the president. But it is truly dumb to say there was completely no valid reason to close Rappler.
Whether or not SEC had any motive in closing Rappler, the fact remains that SEC got Rappler over the fire on a clear constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of media organizations. According to the Constitution, ownership of media entities must be 100% Filipino. That means it cannot be diluted by foreign ownership, however minimal or slight.
Rappler itself admitted to at least having two foreign investors through so-called Philippine Depositary Receipts. But what are Philippine Depositary Receipts? Now I am not competent enough to define it here in my own words. But according to Investopedia, "a depositary receipt is a negotiable financial instrument issued by a bank to represent a foreign company's publicly traded securities."
If that is too cryptic, try Googling and reading "Philippine Depositary Receipts: Mass Media's Existing or Emerging Loophole To Constitutionally Mandated Full Filipino Ownership?" by The Bedan Review editor-in-chief Lorenzo E. Delgado. This well-written, easily understood and enlightening piece will let you see the light on why the SEC decided to shut up Rappler.
I hope that by reading Delgado's article, even people who thought they were on to a good thing by trusting Rappler will eventually realize just how wrong they were. An organization that is supposed to be a watchdog of public trust but would itself willfully violate the Constitution just does not deserve that trust and its closure serves as a fitting recourse for what it has done.
In this day and age when "fake news" has become a very real and disturbing concern, one would have thought that such concern would be the pinnacle of media's problem. But trying to skirt constitutional prohibitions by employing methods that are at best sly makes of fake news nothing more sticky than a piece of lollipop. The Rappler rap is nothing less than big time.
You are going to hear loud protests from critics and enemies of the president regarding this one. And maybe the president relishes the development. But as watchers of the media, it is also expected of media's audience to hear the other side. The story of Rappler is less about its closure than about why. And eventually about how. So please Google and read Lorenzo E. Delgado's piece about depositary receipts. Only then will you understand what Rappler tried to do and did.
- Latest
