Court of Appeals junks Rappler appeal on SEC case

MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has again rejected the bid of online news outfit Rappler to annul the order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last year revoking the business registration of its holding company.

Malacañang said it would not meddle with Rappler’s case but maintained that the ruling had nothing to do with press freedom.

“Any case that has been filed before the courts we will not interfere. We will let the law take its course,” presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo said in a press briefing yesterday.

In a 25-page resolution promulgated on Feb. 21, the CA’s former special 12th division denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Rappler and Rappler Holdings Corp. (RHC) in August last year.

The CA stood firm in its decision in July 2018 that dismissed Rappler’s petition assailing the SEC’s Jan. 11, 2018 order that cancelled the certificate of incorporation of RHC for alleged violation of the foreign equity restrictions in mass media under the Constitution.

The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio Santos, rejected RHC’s appeal for lack of merit.

The CA reiterated its finding that the SEC did not violate RHC’s constitutional right to due process in revoking the firm’s business registration, contrary to the firm’s allegations.

The CA reiterated that Rappler is a mass media entity covered by the ban on foreign ownership under the Constitution as well as by the requirement of 100-percent Filipino ownership in terms of both right to receive dividends and right to vote under the full beneficial ownership test.

The appellate court said RHC “cannot claim that it fully owns the Rappler shares since… Omidyar Network is granted the power to direct the voting on the Rappler shares.”

Lastly, the CA refused to resolve the issue on whether or not the supervening donation made by Omidyar Network of all its Philippine Depository Receipts to the staff of Rappler effectively cured the defect in registration of RHC, which it remanded to the SEC in its previous ruling.

This means the CA left to the SEC the decision on whether to allow the corrective measure taken by RHC to comply with the constitutional requirement. – With Alexis Romero