‘Iniibig ko ang...’

While we, in the Philippines, are debating whether or not ABS-CBN and Rappler violated the constitutional provision that local media companies must be 100 percent Filipino-owned, more and more countries like the United States (US) are relaxing their rules on foreign media funding and even ownership.

This is because a media company is just like any other enterprise which needs access to funds to be competitive and profitable, if not to stave off bankruptcy and closure in the highly competitive news and content dissemination industry.

The problem lies with that antiquated Cory Aquino-era 1987 Philippine Constitution, which has become so restrictive it now serves as a boulder dragging us down, stopping us Filipinos from projecting into the global economic stage.

For if we are to compete beyond our shores, Philippine companies in general need to have the financial muscle as their foreign rivals, whether funding is sourced locally or offshore. Non-media related companies have no problem here.

Utilities, too, like power and water that serve local needs, are better off than media because they are allowed, to some extent, foreign capital infusion. Why is it then that local media companies are being barred from tapping foreign capitalization?

News and data reach has practically become borderless. In view of this, local media companies can now take advantage of game-changing digital technologies to challenge behemoths like Fox and CNN and state-funded enterprises like the British Broadcasting Corporation.

But technology is not cheap, expansion requires money and the new way of doing global business means there’s no room for laws or constitutional prohibitions that stunt than foster growth.

In America, the Communications Act of 1934 has allowed 20 percent direct foreign ownership and 25 percent indirect foreign ownership of US-based broadcast companies. That’s foresight, a recognition several decades back that no country can ever turn its back on foreign capitalization.

Even the implementation of that law is being relaxed by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the media landscape has changed so vastly that to limit foreign equity to 25 or 20 percent is to hit media firms on the sheen with a sledgehammer.

What the US FCC has been doing, since adopting the 2013 Broadcast Declaratory Ruling, is to evaluate, on a case-to-case basis, foreign investment proposals for television and radio broadcast companies that would breach the 25 percent indirect ownership cap.

In fact, the FCC in 2017 allowed 100 percent ownership by an Australian couple of several companies that were, in turn, licensees of seven AM, eight FM radio stations, 13 FM and one TV translator firms in Alaska, Arkansas and Texas.

Other issues like the security aspect of ensuring rogue foreigners are not allowed in on US broadcast firms are handled by other government agencies.

   Overnight, Rep. Rodante Marcoleta has earned a multitude of fans and detractors in the ongoing congressional hearings on the application for a new franchise of ABS-CBN.

But whether one likes or hates Marcoleta for what he has been saying regarding ABS-CBN, he cannot be faulted for saying them in a way that

is easily understandable and digestable, even if he can be pompous at times.

Marcoleta may have gone overboard though, with that

stunt in which he asked ABS-CBN chieftain Gabby Lopez to recite the first line of the Pledge of Allegiance to prove he is more Filipino than American.

He was too quick in claiming that Lopez did not know the line and that he was coached by his lawyer just because the ABS-CBN official bemusedly scratched his head and paused for a short while.

But the pause may have been more due the incredulity of being asked to recite the Panata even if Marcoleta prefaced his unusual request with “mawalang-galang na po” or with all due respect. Being able to recite the Panata is a poor gauge of anyone’s professed allegiance to flag and country. Lopez was correct that he should be judged on his actions, on what he has done as an individual and as ABS-CBN chief.

The only issues really are questions of law, with the first being whether a Filipino-American like Lopez is allowed ownership and control of a media company in view of that archaic constitutional prohibition.

The second matter to be resolved, of course, and not only regarding ABS-CBN, but also for GMA, TV5 and

Rappler, is whether the Philippine Depositary Receipts they use to get foreign funding do not violate that same ban on foreign ownership of Philippine media companies.

Both questions can only be answered by the Supreme Court, short of finally amending the Cory Constitution crafted in the post-Marcos years with paranoia and misplaced nationalism.

In the case of media in the Philippines, why not allow a 40-percent foreign stake as long as the buyers are properly identified and vetted like what the FCC is doing in the US?

“Being able to recite the Panata is a poor gauge of anyone’s professed allegiance to flag and country.

“For if we are to compete beyond our shores, Philippine companies in general need to have the financial muscle as their foreign rivals, whether funding is sourced locally or offshore.