The thing called fate

Somebody wrote somewhere that while he conceded that Rappler may have violated a constitutional provision that expressly limits media ownership to Filipinos, shutting it down as a penalty might also be a violation of the constitutional guarantee on press freedom. He then proceeded to expound on some self-discovered theory on proportionality, such that the penalty should not have been greater than the offense.

The suggested implication here is that shutting down Rappler is an assault on press freedom and is therefore a greater offense against the Constitution than just opening up a Filipino media outlet to foreign investment. This idea of proportionality does not have any leg to stand on, whether of the physical, legal, or even imaginary kind.

This idea of proportionality, which incidentally submits to the allegation that Rappler did indeed open itself up to foreign investors, cannot be sustained by any logic applicable in a disciplined, organized, and orderly world. It is just the same as saying that while it is horrible to murder hundreds of people, murdering one is acceptable by comparison.

A constitutional violation must be meted the penalty that the appropriate authority has within its mandate to apply. If shutting down Rappler is the appropriate penalty to be applied, then so be it. Let not the romanticism of press freedom and its defense get in the way of the application of the law. Besides, neither press nor freedom has got anything to do with this story other than the fact that Rappler simply happens to be a media entity.

Of course it is true that Rappler has been a relentless critic of the Duterte administration. And yes President Rodrigo Duterte has not been shy in showing his public disdain for Rappler. It is even entirely within the realm of possibility that Duterte may have unleashed all the assets under his command to go dig up and find some dirt on Rappler.

But the bottom line is that some questionable things have allegedly been found in the closet of Rappler. It is not as if in the course of a normal day the heavy boot of government just kicked in the door of Rappler and snuffed the living daylights out of its claim to press freedom. You can throw in all the ill motives and mad machinations of government in its move on Rappler but that still would not make one bit of a difference.

Because the only time any Rappler defender can make counter-accusations of malice stick is if Rappler itself had been found squeaky clean. But Rappler itself admitted that Philippine Depositary Receipts have been issued in its name to foreign investors. Now Rappler can argue till Kingdom Come that these negotiable instruments do not necessarily make foreign investors part-owners of Rappler. But there are many experts who can argue just as lengthily that they in fact are.

‘If shutting down Rappler is the appropriate penalty to be applied, then so be it. Let not the romanticism

of press freedom and its defense get in the way of the

application of the law.’

And if the experts are right, and there is no reason to doubt them because that is precisely why they are called that, then Rappler sure is finding itself on queer street. It could not feign ignorance of the Constitution because as a purveyor of information it is supposed to be well-informed, just as surely as it must have known what PDRs are and what they can be used for. Rappler knew exactly what it was getting into.