Press freedom aside, Rappler must comply with the law

T is wearisome to watch the continuing battle of statements, of claims and counter- claims, between the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC) and Rappler, Inc. concerning the revocation of the company’s registration and license to operate by the corporate regulator.

The decision of the SEC to annul Rappler’s registration is the exercise of its legitimate authority and function based on a careful examination of the facts and a prolonged study of the issue. When the commission came up with its decision to revoke, that should be it. Rappler can appeal the decision, if it wishes. But unless the decision is overturned or withdrawn, the company has no choice but to comply.

Rappler’s efforts to overcome its legal setback by attributing it to an assault on press freedom and political pressure by the Duterte administration is deceptive and a case of grabbing at straws. By crying foul, Rappler seeks to curry international media sympathy and support for itself, and to pressure the SEC to relent on its action.

In our view, the Rappler case, from the first and up to now, has never involved the issue of press freedom. The website and its reporters have never been prevented from exercising their right or privilege of reporting the news or posting their commentary. If you google or login to the Rappler website, you will instantly be conveyed to its web page. You will find a lawyer arguing Rappler’s case if you have the time to listen. The website has been left free to do its thing.

The point we want to make here is this. As a media organization, the attaches high value and importance to every case and every instance of government interference in the work of a news organization.

When something like that happens, we naturally think that the same could also happen to our organization and our journalists if we are not watchful and scrupulous in our work. We naturally want to find out whether the government action is justified.

In the Rappler case, it’s not easy for us to identify with its travail, because it is not an organization that is remotely equivalent to a newspaper, TV network, radio network and various publications. Rappler belongs to that new category of social media that lately sprouted on the back of the communications technology revolution.

To declare that an online news website with its rudimentary operations and limited staff, should be treated as the equivalent of a full- fledged newspaper publishing operation, radio- TV broadcast network, and magazine publishing operation is a stretch. It is right that they are accorded access and opportunity to do journalism. But to proclaim that they enjoy press freedom rights and prerogatives like regular media organizations begs the question.

All media operations and services must operate within the bounds of the law.

The case of Rappler shows us a media company that circumvented the constitutional provision that media in the country should be 100 percent Filipino-owned. By transgressing this rule, Rappler brought the law on its head.

We all must turn to the facts in assessing the justice of the SEC decision and the merits of Rappler’s claims. Arguments beyond the facts, like getting the

to editorialize and individuals to testify on Rappler’s behalf, will not change the situation. If the facts show that Rappler violated the country’s corporation laws, it must bow to the SEC.