PUBLIC LIVES: Rappler and press freedom

There’s no question about it: Rappler’s legal troubles were triggered by its commentaries and criticisms of President Duterte and his policies. Mr. Duterte has said many times that he finds these criticisms unfair, and that he will not take them sitting down. Rappler’s persecution follows a clear pattern under this administration.

The President has repeatedly warned the owners and operators of other media organizations like the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the ABS-CBN broadcast network that, if they persist in judging him and his administration from a high moral perch, they ought to be ready to account for their own violations and shortcomings when the time comes.

True enough, that time has come not a day sooner.  The Inquirer owners suddenly found themselves facing charges of nonpayment of correct taxes on their other businesses, and of continuing to occupy government land after the expiration of their lease on the property. In the face of the government’s refusal to extend the lease contract, the Prietos were given three days to vacate the land they had developed and occupied for more than 25 years.  More important, they have decided to engage in talks for the sale of the newspaper.

Similarly, the President has repeatedly called out ABS-CBN for airing allegedly biased reports against him from the time he was running for president. He has also accused the management of the Lopez-owned media company of taking his money and failing to air his advertisements during the election campaign. He has hinted that he and his allies in Congress will remember this when the media network applies for the renewal of its broadcast franchise in a couple of years.

And now it’s Rappler’s turn to be on the hot seat. The issue that the Duterte administration has raised against it (through a letter sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission by the Solicitor General) stems from a constitutional provision that requires media companies to be 100-percent-owned and -controlled by Filipinos. The question centers on the use of so-called Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs) as a device for allowing foreigners to invest in Filipino-owned companies as “passive investors” — i.e., without voting rights or control over the company.

These financial instruments have been in use for some time; they are more akin to IOUs than to equity shares. The issue against Rappler focuses on a side agreement that Rappler apparently entered into with one of its PDR holders, a foreign company, that commits Rappler to get the approval by a two-thirds vote of the PDR holders for any changes in the charter and bylaws of the web-based news organization.

The SEC, the state regulatory agency that oversees the operations of corporations and investors, has ruled that the PDRs issued by Rappler ceded some control to a foreign entity, and thus violated the constitutional provision prescribing 100-percent ownership and control by Filipinos of media organizations.

Unless it can be shown that the SEC commissioners rushed their judgment on this case, ignored due process, and demonstrated manifest bias against Rappler throughout the proceedings, I think it is counterproductive and unfair to accuse them of being Duterte lackeys. Having known some of them in their private capacities, I can say that, in terms of values and political inclinations, they have probably more in common with the journalists at Rappler than with Mr. Duterte’s solicitor general or justice secretary.

That is what makes this whole affair doubly unfortunate.  It has pitted believers in the rule of law and press freedom against one another—even as the real culprit, the one who cynically deploys the institutions of the state against his perceived personal enemies, swaggers as though he were above it all.

Some think that the commissioners should have assigned a greater weight to protecting press freedom than to exacting strict compliance with the nationality provisions on ownership and control of media corporations. But that’s probably more a function of the Supreme Court, to which Rappler may appeal, than of the quasijudicial SEC.

The Supreme Court has a long tradition of upholding the primacy of press freedom whenever it is threatened. As early as 1918, when we were still a US colony, the Court issued these illuminating words in United States vs Bustos: “The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech.  The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted.”  The composition and temperament of the Court, of course, change over time, but, hopefully, not the values it upholds.

Rappler recently reported that Omidyar, the main holder of its PDRs, offered to waive its prerogative under the agreement when it learned of the issue that prompted the cancellation of Rappler’s registration. If so, I believe we must support Rappler so it is permitted to cure this perceived defect in its registration. As important, we must pressure the justice secretary to withdraw his attack dogs and leave Rappler alone.  It is now clear that, under this president, all dissent is in danger.  We need to stand together to protect it.

public.lives@gmail.com



Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/110428/rappler-press-freedom#ixzz55UJPY0YV
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Journalists protest ‘state-enforced’ move to shut down news website

Journalists took to the streets Friday in support of a news website facing state-enforced closure, accusing President Rodrigo Duterte of trampling on press freedom.

The government withdrew the corporate registration of the Rappler website this week and has summoned its chief executive officer to answer a “cyber-libel” complaint in what media watchdogs describe as payback for critical coverage of Duterte’s deadly war on drugs.

About 200 journalists and activists, most of them wearing black, gathered in Quezon City at dusk to protest the ruling, seen by critics as Duterte’s latest bid to stifle opposition to his narcotics crackdown.

The protesters carried banners saying “fight the Duterte dictatorship” and “defend press freedom.”

Malacanang spokesman Harry Roque said in a statement that the demonstration showed “that freedom is alive and democracy is alive in the Philippines”.

Rappler, founded in 2012, is among a handful of Philippines-based news organizations which had produced reports critical of Duterte’s flagship “war on drugs” that the government says has claimed the lives of nearly 4,000 suspects.

Human rights groups charge that thousands more have been killed by shadowy vigilantes.

The Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that the news organization violated a constitutional ban on foreign ownership of local media when its parent company issued Philippine depositary receipts for Rappler shares that were sold to a foreign fund.

Rappler maintains the investment did not constitute equity nor give the investors veto on editorial matters and has vowed to fight Monday’s ruling, which takes effect after 15 days.

Rappler has had a testy relationship with Duterte since he won the election on an anti-crime platform in 2016, with the Philippine leader threatening last year to expose the website’s “American ownership”.

Duterte has also publicly attacked other media outlets that have criticized his policies, including the Philippine Daily Inquirer and major broadcaster ABS-CBN, even threatening to block the TV station’s application for a franchise renewal.

Apart from the loss of its corporate license, Rappler’s chief executive officer Maria Ressa faced a second challenge after she was summoned by the justice ministry to answer a cyber crime complaint against her next week.

The complaint was filed by a businessman, who accused Rappler of libel for reporting in 2012 that he lent a luxury van to then-Supreme Court chief Renato Corona who was later impeached for failing to declare his assets.

Ressa said the charges against Rappler were part of a “fishing expedition” to find any legal basis to attack the news site.

“This administration’s laws are being used to stifle Rappler, a group of journalists and press freedom,” she told AFP.

“The end goal of all of this is to intimidate us into silence.”

Maglana: Getting ‘Rapplered’

TWO variants of one strand of reasoning stood out amid reactions to the revocation of Rappler’s certificate of incorporation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). One, that it was merely regulatory action; the other, that it only affected the business side of Rappler; and both views argued that it did not constitute curtailment of press freedom.

A subset of views argued that Rappler had it coming. The range of what Rappler had done or not done to deserve ‘it’ ranged from being overly critical of this administration and not being appreciative enough of its efforts, to because people associated with the outfit had said or done something that did not sit well with this audience.

Reviewing the paragraph above, I realized two things. One, that the perceived deeds/non-deeds are not inherently valid causes to conclude that Rappler has been remiss in its duties as a member of the media community writ large. This is lost though, on those conditioned to believe media’s role is to praise government, which indicates a problematic understanding of institutions in a democratic context. Two, the references to Rappler in the previous paragraph could easily be replaced with another individual’s or organization’s name. It is not unreasonable to fear that what befell Rappler can also happen to others similarly situated because Rappler’s case is far from being an isolated incident. Rappler may be only one of thousands of media outfits in the Philippines but its situation has a demonstrative effect: you could get ‘Rapplered.’ The observation that government is going after media personages and institutions viewed as unfriendly is not baseless; there have been precedents. The Foundation for Media Alternatives pointed out that President Rodrigo Duterte threatened the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise and later dangled a compromise in exchange for support for federalism. He also had harsh words for the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Prior to his inauguration in 2016, he was quoted as saying “kill journalism, stop journalism in the country.” The franchise renewal of 54 stations under the Catholic Media Network associated with the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has been pending with Congress since 2017, a delay ascribed to Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez’s unfavorable views of CBCP for its criticisms of government’s approaches. Another context is that journalists endure pronounced occupational hazards in our country. We get harassed by interest groups who take issue with their reportage. The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility notes that 156 journalists have been killed in the line of duty since 1986, four under the current administration. Harassment can take different forms: from the outrightly violent to the more indirect and subtle ways referred to as panggigipit—being pressured. The intention is to limit, dissuade, or prevent journalists from effectively doing their work and for the status quo to remain unchallenged. I take issue with the argument that those who work with Rappler are not prevented from pursuing journalism without it. Such reasoning indicates a limited understanding of the community/organization-dependent aspect of journalistic work. We do not work by our lonesome. Denying access to financial, information, technological, and human resources that institutions afford blunts effectiveness of journalists. Cutting us off from our groups could reinforce feelings of powerlessness against structures and forces. Those who insist that this was just a case of the law being enforced have to be reminded that the enforcement smacked of narrow interpretation and had severe effects that only made the situation worse. The SEC normally allows time and opportunity for problematic businesses and organizations to comply with the law. But government revocation of incorporation papers as immediate measure—the first to have occurred among media institutions post-Marcos—also signaled that the Philippine claim to being among the freest press in Asia is contestable. Around the same time, a subcommittee of the House of Representatives sought to amend Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, specifically proposing “responsible exercise” as qualifier for the rights to free expression, speech, and peaceful assembly. It was the only Bill of Rights provision they wanted changed. In an irony-laced letter to Henry L. Pierce and others in 1859, Abraham Lincoln wrote “(t)his is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.” Never doubt that God is just. Email feedback to magszmaglana@gmail.com

Read more: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/opinion/2018/01/21/maglana-getting-rapplered-584927
Follow us: @sunstaronline on Twitter | SunStar Philippines on Facebook