"What Ressa is doing is simply violating laws."
"What Ressa is doing is simply violating laws."
The case filed against Maria Ressa, the CEO of Rappler Holdings, is far from her claim that the government is suppressing the freedom of expression and of the press. She accuses the Duterte administration of “weaponizing” the issue which clearly is defamatory and intended to sow hatred toward the government. She is hiding behind the mantle of press freedom.
Foremost, the issue is not about freedom of the press, but one of seeking to know the truth. The fact that the US-operated mass media network continues to operate instantly belies that Ressa is being harassed. This has to be pointed out. Rather, their being prevented from participating in any press briefing or from interviewing government officials is just in reaction to the finding that they just do not have the license or is operating in violation of Section 11, (1) and (2), Article XVI of the Constitution that ownership of mass media shall be limited to Filipino citizens. This is pursuant to an order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2018.
Interestingly, while Ressa was awarded by her foreign benefactor, TIME Magazine, as one of the Persons of the Year in 2018 as alleged crusader for press freedom, it is stated in her brief bio-data posted in the internet that her nationality and citizenship states “American, Philippine.” We are curious for even if we take it that she is sporting dual citizenship, which is allowed under the law, it should have written Filipino to denote her citizenship. By writing Philippine after the word American indicates clearly that she is not a Filipino. As veteran journalist, Ressa knows what this column is talking about.
Maybe there is a clear case of suppression of freedom of the press, including her and her henchman Reynaldo Santos and the entire board of directors of Rappler namely: Manuel Ayala, Nico Jose Nolledo, Glenda Gloria, James Batinga, Felicia Atienza, James Velasquez and corporate secretary, Jose Maria Hofilena, if there was actual closure of the establishment or was physically prevented from performing their duty. Nonetheless, they continued to operate and spread fake news about the administration in blatant violation of the nationality principle that ownership of corporations operating a mass media in this country is limited to Filipino citizens.
The trouble with Ressa is she always tries to outsmart our law enforcers by her accusation that the government is “weaponizing” the issue. For one, the personal case filed by Wilfredo D. Keng linking him to some illegal activities as alleged owner of the car used by then Chief Justice Renato Corona was branded by her as “preposterous” and “baseless,” and an “attempt to intimidate him,” “black propaganda” and “lies.” Alas, the charges are specific, and no amount of technicality would stand to deflect the motherhood mantra of “freedom of the press.”
Her claim of being charged for a crime of libel when the law for the alleged crime had yet to take effect when the questioned article was published is pure nonsense. She opposed the idea of being charged for a continuing offense of cyber libel. In which case, as long as they remain posted in the internet and there are new readers reading those libelous remarks, surely they stand as continuing defamatory remarks.
But Ressa and her gang are not aware that they committed an even more serious offense of circumventing the law when they accepted the donation from their own benefactor, the Omidyar Network.
First, when the Constitution provides that mass media should be owned by Filipinos, such is an exercise of our sovereign right as an independent state. We are free to enact laws that would safeguard and put limitation to foreign ownership of our mass media and other sectors in our industry. No foreign court could dictate or decide how we are to direct our economy or as to its ownership. We all have to abide by the constitutional provision, and we can never raise the defense of political prosecution.
Second, the donation of Omidyar of $1.5 million is an admission that Rappler is a foreign-funded organization in violation of the Constitution. The violation is serious because their syndicated business is to slander the government that refuses to bow down to their wishes. Besides, the donation does not seek to alter the nature of their activity of engaging in mass media operation which is prohibited. Neither can the SEC headed by Teresita Herbosa be forced to reverse her decision which implies that Rappler already committed the prohibited act.
Third, the issue of nationality is not directed to Omidyar but to the local operators of this mass media. Should there be a change in the nature of the donation, such could be treated as regular investment which admittedly is welcomed by the country. But if the amount is intended so that Rappler can continue what is essentially prohibited by law, that would still fall under the category of circumventing the law.
Fourth, the decision to donate of $1.5 million by Omidyar came in late. There was already a decision that Rappler violated the law. What they seek now is an appeal to reverse the decision. The revocation was made in July 2018 and the donation was made in March 2019. Worse, the decision already constitutes a finding that they violated the law on nationality, i.e. who can operate mass media in this country. This means respondents are merely hanging on to that thin line pending appeal to their case.
Besides, the donation is intended to hit two birds with one stone. This means that with the conversion of “investment” of Rappler into donation, their lawyer can raise the defense that there was a mere technicality. In addition, not being allowed to operate does not constitute exemption from the payment of the tax due for as long as they have taxable income here.
One must bear in mind that Ressa and Rappler Holdings Corporation (RHC) have generated taxable income for being considered as a “dealer in securities” after it was found out that RHC acted as a middleman in buying Rappler Inc’s shares for the purpose of underwriting Philippine Depository Receipts (PDRs) for resale to interested buyers. Whatever this people may say and whatever is the nature of their syndicated business, Ressa and her gang are under obligation to pay the VAT that is due for the said transaction.
Lumping all these cases, it is clear that Ressa’s ranting about freedom of the press is off tangent or as one would out it non sequitur. Nevertheless, no state will allow any alleged international lawyer to tell us what to do like bringing a case to a foreign tribunal for forum convenience.
Taxation cases are jurisdictional much that they are equated to our national sovereignty. It is rather odd if foreign courts will decide a case to grant tax exemption to foreign operatives of mass media. We would be amending our Constitution and our local laws just to accommodate a business that clearly operates to violate the Constitution. More than anything else, is it not possible for the international lawyer to practice law here, much that our own lawyers are not allowed to practice abroad if they do not have the license.
rpkapunan@gmail.com