also, anong hindi apples to apples dun. sinasabi ko na nga na salbahe yung example na officemate meaning salbahe itong si Duterte. so anong hindi appples dun
ngayon pinasok mo yang SMART. oh eto yung sagot galing mismo sa rappler... oh the irony.
https://www.rappler.com/nation/168765-d ... -extension
so uulitin ko OH THE IRONY.MANILA, Philippines – President Rodrigo Duterte renewed the franchise given to Smart Communications, giving it another 25 years to operate.
Last April 21, he signed into law Republic Act No 10926, extending the franchise given to Smart in 1992. Smart's franchise was set to expire last March.
The new law's tax provisions exempt Smart from paying Customs duties, tariffs, and taxes for radio telecommunications equipment, electronic communications equipment, machinery, and spare parts needed for its line of business.
Section 7 of the recently signed law also exempts Smart from the previous requirement of making an initial public offering of at least 30% of their authorized capital stock within two years from implementation of the law.
This provision in the law excludes companies which are "wholly owned by a public listed company."
In effect, Smart – which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of listed PLDT – is exempted from the public offering requirement.]
anyways kaya ako sumabat sa usaping ownership ng rappler at telling you and Daniel na huwag gumawa ng hasty generalization is that hindi lang naman rappler tumitira kay Digong. like I said rappler and nahanapan ng butas.
i'll quote what the National Press Club has to say. itong link manggagaling sa ABS-CBN , isa daw sa siansasbing tumtitra kay digong.
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/17/18/n ... ss-freedom
also yang tinutukoy mo na legal opinion ni Atty. Sta. Maria ... in Legalese is simply an Opinion.... eh papaano yung opinion nitong Law Firm na ito?MANILA - The National Press Club (NPC) on Tuesday said the Securities and Exchange Commission's decision to revoke the registration of news website Rappler has not curtailed press freedom.
"In the broader Philippine media industry, Rappler is just one among the thousands of media entities in the country and whose operations have remained free," Paul Gutierrez, head of the country's oldest and biggest press organization, said in a statement.
"To say that the fate of one media entity found to have run afoul with the law translates to media repression in the country is stretching the argument a bit too much."
Gutierrez said NPC has studied the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) decision to revoke the registration papers of Rappler and "found it quite clear" that the firm violated the law on foreign ownership.
"As the SEC noted, Rappler breached this constitutional limit when it allowed Omidyar to exercise control over its corporate affairs as provided for in their internal agreement, in exchange for a fund infusion of $1 million,” he said.
"Responsible journalism also means complying with the law," Gutierrez added.
Gutierrez noted that the NPC has long ago made it a policy that those applying for membership should represent not only credible but also legally established media entities.
"In this case, we cannot be swayed by the emotion of the moment and go along with the general sentiment that press freedom has been threatened less [sic] we be accused of inconsistency," he said.
There are some 436 television broadcast stations, 411 AM radio stations, over 1,000 FM radio stations and more than 400 newspapers today operating freely in the country, Gutierrez said.
Prominent journalists' groups have slammed the SEC ruling, calling it a threat on press freedom.
The SEC had on Monday revoked Rappler's registration saying it had "sold control to foreigners" and violated the constitutional restriction on foreign ownership of mass media.
The website management said Omidyar Network and North Base Media "do not own" the company, even as they hold Philippine Depositary Receipts.
Depositary receipts held by Omidyar stated that its holder “must have prior approval” on changes in Rappler’s articles of incorporation or by-laws, SEC spokesperson Armand Pan earlier said.
Rappler has maintained that it did not give foreign investors control over its operations and vowed to fight the SEC ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.
ngayon sino susundin mo? Opinion ni Sta. Maria o Opinion nitong Law Firm? para ma-settle yan sa Korte mag-raklamo ang RapplerMANILA -- Law-firm Dizon and Orbe-Dizon has published a factual explanation on how online news platform Rappler had violated the law, prompting the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to revoke Rappler's registration as a Philippine corporation.
In a January 16 article in the law firm's website, lawyer Peter Michael Dizon said Rappler had violated the Constitution, which requires 100-percent Filipino control for any media entity.
Dizon said Rappler violated this provision when it granted foreign firm Omidyar Network control of the media outfit through some clauses in the foreign investor's provision of Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs).
Simply put, PDRs are a form of a capital infusion of a foreign entity so a local firm can keep its operations going.
"There is nothing wrong with the issuance of PDRs," Dizon said. The problem, the lawyer pointed out, was with the conditions linked to the PDRs issued by Rappler to Omidyar Network, prompting the SEC to revoke the news site's registration as a Philippine corporation.
"The provisions included a condition that Rappler and Rappler Holdings cannot alter, modify, or change their Articles of Incorporation and Corporate By-Laws without discussion with the Omidyar Network PDR holders and obtaining the approval of at least two-thirds of all issued PDRs," Dizon explained.
Rappler Holdings was the company established by Rappler to get foreign investments via PDRs, Dizon noted. Rappler Holdings fully acquired the Rappler news site in 2015.
Dizon stressed that under the Securities Regulation Code (SRC), control goes beyond ownership of shares. In the case of media firms, there should be no foreign firm control at all, based on Philippine laws.
One of Rappler’s defenses is that "it is not a media company" and "what it does is not part of mass media," Dizon noted.
"The SEC threw this defense out the door," the law firm said, however, pointing out that Rappler had in fact named itself publicly as a media outfit.
"Rappler had been outing itself publicly as a mass media firm in legal terms and in its press releases," Dizon pointed out.
Rappler, Dizon recalled, also submitted last December a piece of paper saying that the holders of the PDR are waiving their rights to the control provision of the PDR.
"The piece of paper was ignored because it was not even authenticated," he said.
What the SEC did
Dizon noted that in the end, there was enough basis for the SEC to conclude that Rappler issued the PDRs to illegally skirt the strict ownership and control requirements of Philippine law.
The SEC then declared the PDRs issued to Omidyar Network by Rappler void and revoked the news site's certificate of registration as a corporation with the SEC.
"Note that PDRs are not evidence of foreign ownership. It is the contractual provisions in the PDR that will determine foreign control and/or ownership. In Rappler’s case, the PDRs granted its investors some control. Our law prohibits ANY control," the lawyer stressed. "And that was why Rappler’s registration was revoked." (PNA)
so the long and short of what I'm saying sa Korte na lang.