Rappler playing the victim card

is now at the epicenter of a cause for which many of her allies are rallying around her. Her top all-female executives, and Pia Ranada, are likewise turning themselves into Joans of Arc evil Duterte regime.

This would have been avoided had prudence been exercised. Rappler would have been cited for the violations it incurred, and would have been left without any defense had the process taken a different route.

For indeed, the evidence against it is compelling. On its own admission, and as manifested in its own operations, Rappler allowed Omidyar Network, a foreign entity to which it issued Philippine Depositary Receipts, or PDRs, to have some management role. It agreed that Omidyar would have a say on matters that pertain to management prerogatives. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) considered this as effectively an act of being a part-owner, and not just a passive investor. Hence, this is a violation of the Constitution which limits ownership and management of media entities only to Filipinos.

The issuance of the PDRs is not the question here, since the SEC allows Media giants ABS-CBN and GMA 7 have also issued PDRs, even before Rappler did. After all, possession of PDRs does not entitle their holders to ownership rights over an entity.

Nevertheless, legal questions have been raised against PDRs, alleging that they become convenient tools for companies to circumvent the protectionist provisions of the Constitution. It is this loophole that apparently Rappler has taken advantage of.

The issue therefore is how those who hold PDRs are now placed within a company’s operations. The SEC found out that Rappler has given Omidyar enough, even if limited, participation in management.

Therefore, it would have been in order if the SEC had conducted an investigation not only on Rappler, but also on other media organizations that have issued PDRs to foreign entities. Unfortunately, the SEC acts only on complaints.

And this is where it becomes even more controversial. It is wellestablished that the SEC investigated Rappler on the strength of a request - eral, which is administratively under is easier now for Rappler to accuse the President of having a hand in the investigation.

The Solicitor General would still have accomplished the purpose of putting Rappler’s operation under scrutiny in relation to its use of PDRs had he requested the SEC to conduct a broader investigation into all media entities that issued the instrument. In this manner, the investigation would have been freed of any suspicion of being an act of persecution. Had the investigation yielded that only Rappler misused the privilege of issuing PDRs and granted management prerogatives even to its foreign holders, then Rappler’s narrative of playing the victim card of being singled out would have been denied its basis.

The involvement of the Solicitor General in the whole process is in itself also problematic. A media watchdog, or even private individu for the SEC to investigate would have denied Rappler the narrative that this is nothing but the President exacting his vengeance on them because of their critical stance towards him.

Ressa and her cohorts are in fact not being denied their rights to speak, write, practice their profession and act as journalists. They are simply being told that they cannot violate the Constitution.

It is frustrating, to say the least, that the issue of a constitutional violation is now being sidelined by Rappler’s play of the victim card. This effectively diminishes further the symbolic power of the fundamental law of the land, and has only provided ammunition to the noisy political opposition to pit the Bill of Rights against the Constitution in which it is contained.