What’s true and false in Rappler’s ‘shutdown’

L maybe more. - tack, as its new alert system, still on trial, mistakenly texted to cellphones last Saturday, spreading panic and distress.

Only after 20 minutes did another text come through, voiding the one that

screamed in all capital letters: “Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill.”

That false alarm, however, may prove to be a far easier falsehood to deal with than some of the others now going around. Take the tale now making headlines not just here but across the globe about Rappler being shut down by the government.

The shutdown that isn’t

“Philippines shuts down news site critical of Rodrigo Duterte,” headlined The New York Times.

“Philippine authorities move to shut down media site critical of Duterte,” said The Washington Post. In Asia, the Tokyo-based Nik

kei Asian Review journal declared: “Philippines shuts down news site critical of Duterte.”

Two of those headlines could easily have been verified by the papers that ran them as untrue just by checking if rappler.com was still operating, and reading its own stories and statements saying it would continue publishing.

The Washington Post title, similar to one in the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera site, imputes an intent that the Securities and Exchange Commission, which canceled Rappler’s incorporation, belied by saying that the SEC action does not stop the website and its editors, reporters and video journalists from covering news.

So, what exactly happened to Rappler if it wasn’t or would not be closed?

corporate entity, existing under Philippine law, was ruled by the SEC, the authority empowered to administer corporations, to have violated a constitutional provision requiring that media entities in the country be wholly owned by Filipinos.

Among bases cited by the fivemember commission, including four appointed by former President Benigno Aquino 3rd, is a provision in the investment instrument used by Rappler to raise capital from abroad.

The problematic line gave holders of these Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs), which may be foreign entities, a veto on major management decisions. It stipulated that such decisions would need approval from investors holding at least twothirds of outstanding PDRs.

With this provision, foreigners holding Rappler PDRs have some kind of say in its running. And any measure of control, major or minuscule, violates the total ban on any kind of foreign ownership or control in Philippine media ventures.

Rappler sought to address the SEC’s objection to this provision by getting a waiver from the entity holding the PDRs which required the two-thirds ascent. But the waiver was not notarized or validated by a Philippine consular official, as required by SEC rules.

The SEC could have waited for Rappler to get the waiver notarized. But it decided not to give that concession after having allowed a previous postponement requested just recently.

How Rappler wins and Duterte loses

Rappler CEO Maria Ressa insists that the Palace is behind the SEC ruling. Yet the outcomes are anything but favorable to Malacañang.

First, Rappler won’t be shut. and Rappler ceases to exist as a Philippine company, it can simply transfer or sell its assets to a new corporate entity that is 100-percent Filipino-owned and has no legally dubious PDRs and other instruments encumbering it.

Second, the controversy has rallied behind Rappler local and foreign media, plus advocates of press freedom, human rights, and democracy at home and abroad. Now, Rappler reports and commentary, especially on President Rodrigo Duterte and his government, would be followed, believed and shared more than before.

Third, its web audience and brand renown are sure to have surged, making Rappler even - vestors, more valuable.

And Rappler would be even more critical of President Duterte and his government that, in its view, seek its closure.

Plus: The whole episode helps Duterte opponents portraying his administration as an enemy of freedom and rights, not only in the thousands of killings in the antidrug war, but also over martial law in Mindanao, pressure on the press, and Charter change purportedly intended to cancel elections and extend the President’s rule.

All that sounds like an utterly no-win, all-bad result for a move supposedly orchestrated by Malacañang. With this kind of outcome, some Machiavellian types might even see a yellow scheme in the SEC to put the Palace on the spot while burnishing Rappler’s creds.

Just the facts, please

But rather than speculate, let’s stick to the facts.

Bottom line: Rappler will continue covering the news. It has to address violations of law in its PDRs. And the Palace, for all of President Duterte’s hostile remarks about Rappler, loses rather than gains from the SEC decision.

With Rappler now projected online and in global media as a pur by the Duterte regime, even its dubious reports would be more widely accepted and shared, as its bloated

And not just Rappler, but other media as well as politicians critical of the administration.

This week Rappler claimed that Duterte’s special assistant Bong Go “intervened” in the procurement of a weapons system for two frigates acquired by the Navy. Many will go with that, even if Go merely Lorenzana a paper on rival systems do with materials they receive regarding matters under the purview of state agencies.

There are claims of Charter change being railroaded, with all manner of proposed amendments reported as sure of approval. Yet the Constituent Assembly process has barely begun and will transpire over months in full view of media.

Also magnets of critical coverage are China affairs and internal security, with the government portrayed as soft on Beijing and hard on rebels (more on these topics in future).

To those who value and seek truth, just remember: Like Rappler’s “shutdown,” not all headlines are true.