READ: Atty. Dizon explains in detail why Rappler shoud be closed and sued by SEC

When the news broke that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has revoked the registration of the online-based news organization Rappler as a Philippine corporation, a lot of netizens cry foul and said that this is a clear proof that the Duterte administration is curtailing the freedom of the press in the country.

However, these Rappler supporters crying foul should understand that this decision is not about silencing the press; it is due to the fact that the organization violated the Philippine law.

To better understand SEC’s decision, Dizon and Orbe-Dizon law-firm published a detailed explanation of how Rappler violated the law.

Through the law firm’s website, lawyer Peter Michael Dizon explained in an article that Rappler violated a simple Constitution rule that requires any media entity to owned and controlled by 100% Filipino.

Dizon said that although there is nothing wrong with the issuance of PDR, the problem lies with the conditions Rappler provided in Omidyar Network’s PDR.

“The provisions included a condition that Rappler and Rappler Holdings cannot alter, modify, or change their Articles of Incorporation and Corporate By-Laws without discussion with the Omidyar Network PDR holders and obtaining the approval of at least two-thirds of all issued PDRs,” Dizon said.


The lawyer also explained that Rappler Holdings is a company established by Rappler to acquire foreign investments; however, in 2015 Rappler Holdings gained full acquisition with the news site.

Dizon also argued on Rappler’s defense that they are not a media company and “what it does is not part of mass media” is not acceptable.

“The SEC threw this defense out the door. Rappler had been outing itself publicly as a mass media firm in legal terms and in its press releases,” added.

The lawyer firmly said that the SEC has enough basis in giving this ruling to Rappler  “Note that PDRs are not evidence of foreign ownership. It is the contractual provisions in the PDR that will determine foreign control and/or ownership,” Dizon explained.

“In Rappler’s case, the PDRs granted its investors some control. Our law prohibits ANY control. And that was why Rappler’s registration was revoked,” he added.

Source: PinasCitizen


No comments:

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Powered by Blogger.