Duterte's Presidency : Expectations, Controversies, Rants, Etc.

[rooster69ph]

@haroots this is my question to you on pdr ... nilipat ko dito kasi off topic na dun.

 

pls enlighten us...on the ownership issue raised by lodi

 

Granted your argument is correct ... So haroots are you saying that media companies should not issue pdr coz it is illegal?

 

Pls enlighten us with ur knowledge

 

Like I said on my previous post on the other thread, SC will have the final say regarding PDRs..

I am more interested with your appreciation of the law ...your personal views and opinion on the said matter. Specifically pdr vis-a-vis foreign ownership.

 

Parang madami kang alam sa pdr eh at hiniritan mo pa si tk sa kanyang kaalaman.

 

So dahil nagissue ng pdr ang isang media outfit like rappler para maging legal dapat ba ipabago ang constitution para maging legal ang pagissue? Yun kasi ang dating nang inilitanya mo kay tk yun section on foreign ownership. Kaya ba ganub yun paghirit mo.

Edited January 19, 2018 by rooster69ph

[haroots2]

@haroots this is my question to you on pdr ... nilipat ko dito kasi off topic na dun.

 

pls enlighten us...

 

 

I am more interested with your appreciation of the law ...your personal views and opinion on the said matter. Specifically pdr vis-a-vis foreign ownership.

 

Parang madami kang alam sa pdr eh at hiniritan mo pa si tk sa kanyang kaalaman.

 

So dahil nagissue ng pdr ang isang media outfit like rappler para maging legal dapat ba ipabago ang constitution para maging legal ang pagissue? Yun kasi ang dating nang inilitanya mo kay tk yun section on foreign ownership. Kaya ba ganub yun paghirit mo.

 

My answer is based on the SECs decision and understanding on them. SEC or I maybe wrong kaya sinabi ko SC na ang final say for their interpretation of it. Ang sa akin lang kapag may investment ka sa kumpanya kahit wala kang voting powers sa board pwede ka pa rin mag influence (which Rappler is denying it) lalo na kung malaking pera din yun kasi anytime pwede ka naman mag pullout ng investment.

 

I just wonder what if all foreign PDRs were returned, pwede na ba sila uli mag operate?

[rooster69ph]

I see ... yun banat mo kasi kay tk eh parang ang dating sa akin para sa iyo napakababaw ng kanyang kaalaman kumpara sa iyo. Yun pala di ka rin sigurado sa sarili mo. Specifically kung bawal ba talaga ang pagissue ng pdr at para makapagissue eh dapat baguhin ang saligang batas tulad ng hirit mo sa kanya.

 

From the looks of it i wonder if you even understand what this pdr instrument is all about.

 

Sige thanks for being candid. I think am able to guage your knowledge on this already.

[haroots2]

Well he posted na bakit nagkaroon siya ng license to operate e obviously nakukuha naman ito before you start operating. Akala niya naman alam na alam niya ang Rappler kung paano ito nagsimula.

Most of legal personalities and groups that sides with Rappler doesn't really question the legality regarding PDR as foreign investment on media. One says sana inayos nalang nila between SEC and Rappler. I also posted below what PCIJ thinks on the ruling.

 

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) said the SEC's "harsh" ruling has "horrifying implications on the full and untrammeled exercise of press freedom."

PCIJ said the SEC, as it had previously ruled in similar cases, could have imposed penalties or fines, or ordered Rappler to amend its papers or unload its foreign investments.

[rooster69ph]

Well he posted na bakit nagkaroon siya ng license to operate e obviously nakukuha naman ito before you start operating. Akala niya naman alam na alam niya ang Rappler kung paano ito nagsimula.

 

Wag mo na naman ilayo at paikutin ang isang simpleng topic. At hindi ganun ang sinabi/pagkasabi niya sa iyo.

 

Ang pinakapunto sa sinabi ni tk is that 100% ng shareholders niya is filipino kaya nga may approval sa sec to operate. which is true...not only when it started operations which is a no brainer actually but even up to this day even with the issuance of the pdr.

 

Kaya nga gusto kong mavalidate ano ba ang kaalaman/pagkaintindi mo sa pdr which obviously is superficial to none. Yes may investment ang foreigner sa rappler via pdr but does that constitute foreign ownership? is that illegal? Hindi mo nga alam at di masagot yan mga tanong ko earlier diba at sabi mo let sc decide. Sa totoo lang and am sure you most likely dont know this ... gma and abscbn have issued pdr as well. Pldt which is also subject to ownership limits do have adr. No issues right? But it is something about the terms of the pdr issued by rappler which is in question that is supposedly illegal. Yun ang problema at real issue. Is changing the constitution the way to go to resolve this like what u suggested to tk? To lobby for an amendment.

Edited January 19, 2018 by rooster69ph

[rooster69ph]

 

Ang sa akin lang kapag may investment ka sa kumpanya kahit wala kang voting powers sa board pwede ka pa rin mag influence (which Rappler is denying it) lalo na kung malaking pera din yun kasi anytime pwede ka naman mag pullout ng investment.

 

 

Really?

 

I will give you a scenRio ... perpetual non voting cumulative preferred shareholders.

 

Can they influece or have a say in the decision making of the company? eh kung magmatigas si company at di sila pakinggan ano magagawa nila? also, Can they pull out their investment anytime?

[haroots2]

Wag mo na naman ilayo at paikutin ang isang simpleng topic. At hindi ganun ang sinabi/pagkasabi niya sa iyo.

 

Ang pinakapunto sa sinabi ni tk is that 100% ng shareholders niya is filipino kaya nga may approval sa sec to operate. which is true...not only when it started operations which is a no brainer actually but even up to this day even with the issuance of the pdr.

 

Kaya nga gusto kong mavalidate ano ba ang kaalaman/pagkaintindi mo sa pdr which obviously is superficial to none. Yes may investment ang foreigner sa rappler via pdr but does that constitute foreign ownership? is that illegal? Hindi mo nga alam at di masagot yan mga tanong ko earlier diba at sabi mo let sc decide. Sa totoo lang and am sure you most likely dont know this ... gma and abscbn have issued pdr as well. Pldt which is also subject to ownership limits do have adr. No issues right? But it is something about the terms of the pdr issued by rappler which is in question that is supposedly illegal. Yun ang problema at real issue. Is changing the constitution the way to go to resolve this like what u suggested to tk? To lobby for an amendment.

 

Feeling mo naman napakagaling mo dito. Take note ah feeling lang baka umakyat kasi sa ulo mo eh. Sa PDR kaya sinabi ko SC ang may final say, diba ganun naman ang mangyayari? Even how extensive ang knolweldge mo dito depends pa rin sa interpretation ng mga hurado. Ang kaso ni Rappler can have a different interpretations regarding the PDR. Maski SC sigurado hindi unanimous ang boto dyan.

And why would you assume na hindi ko alam sa GMA and ABS CBN, alam mo ba na explain na ng SEC kung bakit pwede yung ginawa nila? Kung bakit kay Rappler ay hindi pwede kaya nanindigan na ang SEC regarding their decision.

[rooster69ph]

Hindi ko narinig o nabasa explanation ni sec on the abs and gma pref ... also sa pldt adr kung alam mo rin. Can u share para we can discuss its merits.

 

But bottonline is this do you need sc to answer a simple question that i even generalized. Madaling masagot ito ng mga nakakaintindi ng pdr. Lalu na"t narinig mo na pala explanation ng sec.

 

Ang tanong does pdr held by foreigners constitute foreign ownnership in the company.

 

Yes or no?

Edited January 19, 2018 by rooster69ph

[haroots2]

Hindi ko narinig o nabasa explanation ni sec on the abs and gma pref ... also sa pldt adr kung alam mo rin. Can u share para we can discuss its merits.

 

But bottonline is this do you need sc to answer a simple question that i even generalized. Madaling masagot ito ng mga nakakaintindi ng pdr. Lalu na"t narinig mo na pala explanation ng sec.

 

Ang tanong does pdr held by foreigners constitute foreign ownnership in the company.

 

Yes or no?

 

Issuance of PDR and how it is done is the difference kaya naging pwede sa ABS and GMA. So its not a simple of a yes or no. Abangan mo na lang sa balita how SEC explains it.

[rooster69ph]

 

 

wait, do you even know what pdr is??? or nakikisawsaw ka na sa issue ng pdr ni rappler eh hindi mo naman alam ano ang pdr. coz if you know what pdr is in its purest sense then alam mo essentially at masasagot mo in a simple yes or no if a pdr held by a foreigner constitute ownership.

 

 

the way you answer it is very evident that you don’t know what a pdr is specifically if a holder whether local or foreign do constitute ownership in the company.

 

 

“Ang sa akin lang kapag may investment ka sa kumpanya kahit wala kang voting powers sa board pwede ka pa rin mag influence (which Rappler is denying it) lalo na kung malaking pera din yun kasi anytime pwede ka naman mag pullout ng investment.“. tulad nito wrong assumption ... i’ already gave you an example earlier ... a perpetual non voting preferred shareholder.

[rooster69ph]

well una sa lahat we know rappler got the ire of the president kaya nga pinasilip. to be fair about it nakahanap talaga ng butas ang sec sa rappler. i myself will admit to that. the question is, whether the sanction was too harsh? but that is the prerogative really of the reader

[Bolj]

well una sa lahat we know rappler got the ire of the president kaya nga pinasilip. to be fair about it nakahanap talaga ng butas ang sec sa rappler. i myself will admit to that. the question is, whether the sanction was too harsh? but that is the prerogative really of the reader

Brad cmon, i know alam mo na may special clause anG rappler sa pdr nila, and the special clause was not properly presented sa SEC. Alam kong alam mo yan, ikaw pa mula pa noon resourceful ka eh. Kahit pareho kayu anti ng isang troll dyan sana wag ka mag go down sa level nya din, kita mo natakot ma ban inaayos na mga one liner idiotic post nya.

[rooster69ph]

Brad cmon, i know alam mo na may special clause anG rappler sa pdr nila, and the special clause was not properly presented sa SEC. Alam kong alam mo yan, ikaw pa mula pa noon resourceful ka eh. Kahit pareho kayu anti ng isang troll dyan sana wag ka mag go down sa level nya din, kita mo natakot ma ban inaayos na mga one liner idiotic post nya.

bro am just trying to prove a point to someone who replied like this ...

 

Pa ammend mo yung constitution kasi nakalagay dyan kung ilang % ang ownership sa mga companies pero sa media

 

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ...

 

 

www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/...constitution...philippines/the-1987-constit...

 

 

Section 11. (1) The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens. The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public interest so requires.

the point is someone who knows what a plain vanilla pdr is would know if a holder of a pdr constitutes an ownership in the company or not kesehodang local yan o foreign ang may hawak ng pdr. very obvios sa sagot niya na hindi niya talaga alam. inamin naman niya na yun knowledge niya eh more on the issue kung saan nabasa o narinig niya.

 

for him ang change in ownership ay dependent kung “how the pdr is done” ... mali eh. hindi naman shares of stocks ang pdr to constitute change in ownership when a company issues a pdr to either a local or a foreign individual / entity. in fact anyone who has read the SEC decision (and i actually mean the drafted resolution not the new reports on the issue) would know hindi sinabi ni sec na hey rappler dahil nag issue ka ng pdr sa foreigner eh nilabag mo ang foreign ownership kasi nga it does not constitute a change in ownership.

 

so ano ba ang issue ni sec kay rappler ... eto yun eh. the guy posted section 11of the constitution pero hindi niya nauunawaan at di niya ma-relate sa issue ni rapppler. sa sec. 11 malinaw na sinasaad dun na “the ownership and management” of mass media shall be limited to filipino individuals or entities. even with the pdr held by foreign entities 100% filipino owned pa rin si rappler. ganyan di naman sila abs at gma for example na have issued their own pdr which are in fact listed in the PSE. ang problema when they issued the pdr there was an agreement of sort that the company need the conformity of 2/3 of the pdr holders for any changes it wants to make in its articles of incorporation, etc. dun siya nadale ... because while rappler remains fully filipino owned it does not however have full filipino control in the MANAGEMENT of the company as it needs to seek the conformity of pdr holders who happens to be foreigners. now technically kung local yan pdr holders non issue coz while wala pa rin change of ownership at yun hinihingan nila ng conformity under the terms of the issued pdr eh filipino pa din so complied pa rin ang ownership and management provision ng sec. 11.

 

so in short ang kaso ni rappler eh hindi dahil nagkaroon ito ng foreign ownership through the foreign investor per se dahil uulitin ko the issuance of the pdr does not constitute a change in ownership but rather because of the provisions under the terms of the pdr issued. the pdr was now seen by the SEC to be an “ equity derivatives” in order to circumvent the ownership rule. that the pdr issued was illegal thus was voided.

 

based on the merits, i would say the SEC has a point in its case. kaya nga ang defense ni rappler is nagbigay sila ng isang documentong nagpapatunay supposedly na nai-waived naman yun particular item in question sa pag issue ng pdr. as far as the sanction imposed some are saying its too harsh. maybe yes because it can be rectified but on the other hand this is within the authority of the SEC.

[camiar]

Dear Tatay Digong

 

Congrats to your loyal blogger/ supporter Mocha Uson for winning an award as Outstanding Alumnus for Govt Service sa UST. Many believe that this is a true testament that only the Best and The Brightest are in your appointed govt cabinet.

 

bitter ba?

[camiar]

bro am just trying to prove a point to someone who replied like this ...

 

 

the point is someone who knows what a plain vanilla pdr is would know if a holder of a pdr constitutes an ownership in the company or not kesehodang local yan o foreign ang may hawak ng pdr. very obvios sa sagot niya na hindi niya talaga alam. inamin naman niya na yun knowledge niya eh more on the issue kung saan nabasa o narinig niya.

 

for him ang change in ownership ay dependent kung “how the pdr is done” ... mali eh. hindi naman shares of stocks ang pdr to constitute change in ownership when a company issues a pdr to either a local or a foreign individual / entity. in fact anyone who has read the SEC decision (and i actually mean the drafted resolution not the new reports on the issue) would know hindi sinabi ni sec na hey rappler dahil nag issue ka ng pdr sa foreigner eh nilabag mo ang foreign ownership kasi nga it does not constitute a change in ownership.

 

so ano ba ang issue ni sec kay rappler ... eto yun eh. the guy posted section 11of the constitution pero hindi niya nauunawaan at di niya ma-relate sa issue ni rapppler. sa sec. 11 malinaw na sinasaad dun na “the ownership and management” of mass media shall be limited to filipino individuals or entities. even with the pdr held by foreign entities 100% filipino owned pa rin si rappler. ganyan di naman sila abs at gma for example na have issued their own pdr which are in fact listed in the PSE. ang problema when they issued the pdr there was an agreement of sort that the company need the conformity of 2/3 of the pdr holders for any changes it wants to make in its articles of incorporation, etc. dun siya nadale ... because while rappler remains fully filipino owned it does not however have full filipino control in the MANAGEMENT of the company as it needs to seek the conformity of pdr holders who happens to be foreigners. now technically kung local yan pdr holders non issue coz while wala pa rin change of ownership at yun hinihingan nila ng conformity under the terms of the issued pdr eh filipino pa din so complied pa rin ang ownership and management provision ng sec. 11.

 

so in short ang kaso ni rappler eh hindi dahil nagkaroon ito ng foreign ownership through the foreign investor per se dahil uulitin ko the issuance of the pdr does not constitute a change in ownership but rather because of the provisions under the terms of the pdr issued. the pdr was now seen by the SEC to be an “ equity derivatives” in order to circumvent the ownership rule. that the pdr issued was illegal thus was voided.

 

based on the merits, i would say the SEC has a point in its case. kaya nga ang defense ni rappler is nagbigay sila ng isang documentong nagpapatunay supposedly na nai-waived naman yun particular item in question sa pag issue ng pdr. as far as the sanction imposed some are saying its too harsh. maybe yes because it can be rectified but on the other hand this is within the authority of the SEC.

 

Kahit gaano pa ang hinaba-haba ng thesis mo dyan sa foreign ownership issue ng Rappler, the SEC has solid basis from the constitution. The constitutional issue is that foreigners cannot invest in local news organizations to avoid foreign influence. Kahit may waiver pa, it is still an investment and any investment can be used to influence the way the organization does its business.

 

Pare simple ang buhay, mag bukas na lang ulit ng "Rappler Rev 1" na walang foreign investor.