ABSTRACT

The total prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine mass media exemplifies a broader polemic on nationalism - as a
legitimate priority for constitutional protection, as opposed to being an appealing mass strategy for political rhetoric. Within this
theoretical setting, I propose a differentiated analysis of the issue of foreign ownership prohibition in mass media. I draw three
(3) brief lines of critique against the total prohibition of foreign ownership of Philippine mass media. First, I dispute the
traditional "public interest" justification for barring any form of foreign ownership in mass media in the Philippines, showing that
the fear of "foreign influence" over media content is dependent on an asserted political truth that is in no way self-evident, much
less materially relevant from apparently (and already) "internationalized" Philippine media practices. Second, I question the
implicit assumption that foreign ownership restrictions improve economic growth through wholly-owned Filipino companies,
showing that there is no strict causal nexus between total exclusion of foreign ownership and the improvement of shareholder
value of Philippine mass media companies. In fact, as many empirical studies affirm, at least some degree of foreign ownership,
even in media sectors, has tended to improve domestic economic growth in developing countries, through the infusion of
necessary capital and the dismantling of monopolistic structures. Third, and most crucially, I argue that the constitutionalization
of the complete prohibition against foreign ownership merely creates a convenient ideological cover that locks in specific and
entrenched oligarchic interests which have long since dominated Philippine mass media. Instead of being a significant
constitutional policy, "nationalism" acquires disutility through its reduction to mere inflammatory political rhetoric, as in the case
of the foreign ownership prohibition in mass media. The latter not only stifles open competition in providing the service of access
to information, but more problematically, denies genuine contestation in a fully democratic marketplace of ideas envisioned in
the 1987 Philippine Constitution. By pre-committing the Philippines to an absolute and total constitutional prohibition against
foreign ownership of mass media, the 1986 Constitutional Commissioners inadvertently achieved perverse results antithetical to
the goals of national development and social equality. Thus, in order to avoid this disingenuous locking in of special interests in
Philippine mass media in the guise of nationalist rhetoric, I advocate a de-constitutionalization of the total prohibition of foreign
ownership in Philippine mass media and advertising, in order to turn the issue over to more flexible and open legislative
processes of speech and debate, and concomitantly, to cyclically-repeated exercises of public auditing. Part I juxtaposes the
constitutional and legal framework of foreign ownership with the present structure of Philippine mass media ownership, pointing
out key political and legal institutions that have traditionally protected specific family or oligarchic interests in Philippine mass
media. Part II discusses public interest, economic, and sociological lines of critique against the constitutional prohibition against
any foreign ownership in Philippine mass media. Part III then argues the proposal for de-constitutionalization, and concludes that
the presence or extent of any foreign ownership restriction in Philippine mass media can be better debated, vetted, and adjusted
through the dynamic interaction between legislative controls and the unprecedented expansion of judicial review under the 1987
Philippine Constitution.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact
factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher
conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be
applicable.

However, one of the goals in the Medium-Term Philippines Development Plan 2004-2010 (MTPDP) aims to
liberalize the ownership by dismantling legal, administrative, and constitutional barriers to foreign investments.
Since 2004, the proposal to amend the constitution has been furtive but persistent. Today, with the continuous
campaign to realize Charter Change, instigated by the Constitutional Committee, liberalization may not be too far
ahead. When these amendments push through, media will surely be pressed to open up.
However, one of the goals in the Medium-Term Philippines Development Plan 2004-2010 (MTPDP) aims to
liberalize the ownership by dismantling legal, administrative, and constitutional barriers to foreign investments.
Since 2004, the proposal to amend the constitution has been furtive but persistent. Today, with the continuous
campaign to realize Charter Change, instigated by the Constitutional Committee, liberalization may not be too far
ahead. When these amendments push through, media will surely be pressed to open up.
Freedom from what?

Pushing for liberalization of mass media may be quite ironic in a country which has one of the so-called freest press
in the world. Why and exactly from what should Philippine mass media be liberalized?
Constitutional Committee member Prof. Alexander Magno stressed the need to liberate our media from the
oligarchs. Most Philippine dailies do not gain revenue but continue to circulate in order to serve other purposes.
Sheila Coronels investigative reports The Lords of the Press and The New Lords of the Press showed how
newspapers have been used to defend their owners political allies or otherwise advance their proprietors
business concerns They have also been utilized by their owners to wage political and business battles.
Allowing foreign entities to own Philippine mass media, may lead to great improvements in terms of facilities,
equipment, and other technical needs since they are more financially capable. Our media leave too much to be
desired, said Dr. Renato Velasco, former director-general of the Philippine Information Agency. [There are so
many] media entities that lack critical equipment and facilities. A broader worldview is also highly important,
especially in the time of globalization. Velasco described the orientation of Philippine media as parochial as if
the world events revolve around the Philippines.
Still, the biggest enticement to open media ownership in the country remains to be the economic profits it would
generate. That (Art. XVI, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution) is one of the stupidest provisions in the
constitution Maraming investment opportunities ang nawawala, (Many investment opportunities are gone.)
Magno said. Ang media natin parang sari-sari store in the age of 7-eleven..Papatayin ka ng 7-eleven. (Our media
are like the variety stores in the age of 7-eleven. You will be killed by 7-eleven.)
According to Magno, opening the media would open a large area of investment because Filipinos have a
comparative advantage in production, animation, screenplay, and more. It would also open more job opportunities,
which may lessen unethical practices in media. In Carlos Condes PJR report How Malacanang Corrupted the
Media in March 2001, one would see how journalists justify bribery with low wages and miserable benefits.
Velasco said that higher salaries are the solution to media corruption. Kapag mas mataas ang suweldo,
yung temptation for corruption is less. (If the salary is high, the temptation for corruption is less.)
Greater competition, higher standards
Opening the media may provide the needed competition to improve local media standards. But University of the
Philippines (UP) History Prof. Ricardo Jose, writer of the essay Fragments from the Past: Towards a History of the
Philippine Press, said that paying more serious attention to media groups like the Philippine Press Institute (PPI)
would do the job. 1960s pa dinidiscuss yan [problem with standards] eh, and foreign ownership is not the
solution. (This has been discussed since the 1960s, and foreign ownership is not the solution.)
Velasco is positive about the whole thing, confident in the capability of Filipinos to improve remarkably if faced
with foreign competition. Hindi ba pagpasok ng McDonalds we came up with Jollibee? And Jollibee has gone
internationalAnd hindi McDonalds ang number one dito, [kundi] Jollibee. (Isnt it that when McDonalds came
in, we came up with Jollibee? And Jollibee has gone international. And McDonalds is not number one here, but
Jollibee.)
While the strong confidence in the Filipino is admirable, it is too simplistic to compare mass media to a fast food
chain. Fast food chains do not hold power to influence a people and stir a country. Nor does it play the crucial role in
shaping national consciousness.
No guarantee
It is this crucial role that makes it even more dangerous to leave media in the hands of foreigners.
Freeing our media from local oligarchs does not guarantee freedom from large media conglomerates like AOL Time
Warner, which has over 125 fully- and partially-owned labels internationally, including CNN, Timemagazine,

Warner Bros. and Winamp. How high then, is the probability of having conflicts of interest with this kind of
business structure?
In fact, we are not really sure how mass media would be should we open them to foreign entities. According to the
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) report Eastern Empires: Foreign Media Ownership in CEE in 2003,
countries like Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, and Poland have allowed foreign ownership of media to prevent the
concentration and monopoly of local companies. But now they are facing the same problem with foreign media
domination, and the continued weakening of local mass media. EFJ describes the growing domination by foreign
media groups through a process of market colonization which has taken place since 1989 in Central and Eastern
European countries.
Rowena Carranza-Paraan of the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines (NUJP) said that the main concern
of those resisting the liberalization of media is the dominance of foreign view. Large networks would definitely be
of foreign investors interest because of profit, but print would be a good catch because of its great influence.
Ganoong ka-influential ang media kaya delikado na ipahawak mo [sa
foreigners]Ibaang mindset, iba ang interest, iba ang takbo ng isip [nila]. (That is how influential media are so it
is dangerous to have them in foreign hands. There is a difference in mindset and interest. How they think is also
different.)
Role of alternative press
What would become of the alternative press should foreigners be allowed to own Philippine media?
Carranza said that foreign investors would have no interest in such, since alternative media are never profit-oriented.
With the investors eyes fixed on the mainstream, the alternative press would have a more significant role in
promoting the ideals and issues of the Filipinos.
Readers seeking the Filipino perspective in news writing and dissemination would definitely turn to the alternative
press. Lagi siyang [the alternative press] may papel lalo na kapag nagkaroon ng foreign ownership (It will always
play a role, especially when there exists foreign ownership), Carranza said. But it is also possible that the entry of
foreign media giants would be overwhelming for small media companies without very strong economic foundations.
Jose agreed with Carranza in the alternative presss role. But the problem is baka maging tidal wave ito. Philippine
alternative press would be stronger butkung foreign media yan, malaking capital yan. So how do they challenge
that? (But the problem is that foreign ownership might become like a tidal wave. Philippine alternative press would
be stronger but foreign media have bigger capital. So how do you challenge that?)
Greatest casualty
The greatest casualty of allowing the liberalization of media is not the mere uncertainties on our medias future, but
the risk of having outsiders gain dominance of our mainstream media. Would we actually let them be the voice of
our people?
Every Filipino is aware of the medias power, and how it has molded and sculpted our history from colonial powers
to dictatorship rule, from the ousting of an incompetent leader, to the strive to oust yet another deceitful president.
We have gone this far holding mass media as our own, having our trusty old watchdog, though limping and perhaps
infested with fleas, bite the hands off dictators and dishonest leaders. Why let a strange collie, no matter how
attractive it is, do the gate keeping? Contributed to Bulatlat

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1776

FURTHER AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 576, ENTITLED "ABOLISHING THE MEDIA ADVISORY
COUNCIL AND THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS FOR MASS MEDIA, AND AUTHORIZING THE ORGANIZATION
OF REGULATORY COUNCILS FOR PRINT MEDIA AND FOR BROADCAST MEDIA"
WHEREAS, the important role of mass communications in national development necessitates the assumption by the government
of an active role in promoting the development of mass media, consistent with the principle of press freedom and the need for
social responsibility in its exercise;
WHEREAS, the self-regulating print and broadcast media councils or bodies authorized to be organized under Presidential
Decree No. 576 have succeeded by and large in self-regulation, internal discipline and maintenance of standards for professional
conduct and excellence;
WHEREAS, it is necessary to enhance the role of these councils or bodies not only in elevating the standards to excellence of
mass media, but also in assisting the government in the enforcement of the laws, such as the nationality requirement in the
Constitution, relating to mass media activities;
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the registration of mass media should be exercised in such a manner as to avoid the possibility of
oligopolistic self-regulation, and thus afford greater opportunity for participation in mass media activities; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to improve upon the membership in the regulatory council for each mass media group by including
prominent citizens who will represent the viewpoint of the general public and provide greater balance in the deliberations of the
council.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested
in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following:
Section 1. Sec. 2 of Presidential Decree No. 576, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. For purposes of this Decree, mass media shall be divided into two groups: Print Media and Broadcast Media. "Print
Media" includes all newspapers, periodicals, magazines, journals, and publications and all advertising therein, and billboards,
neon signs and the like. "Broadcast Media" includes radio and television broadcasting in all their aspects, including all forms of
audio, visual or audio-visual communications such as video tapes, citizens band, and other similar electronic devices, and
cinematography, to the extent that these forms are utilized as mass media through radio or television broadcasting transmission.
The Print Media group and the Broadcasting Media group are hereby authorized to organize and determine the composition of a
body or council within each group which shall be responsible for instituting and formulating systems of self-regulation and
internal discipline within its own ranks; Provided, That there shall be adequate representation from the general public in such
body or council by the inclusion of knowledgeable prominent citizens of unquestioned integrity."
Sec. 2. Sec. 3 of Presidential Decree No. 576, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 3. Each regulatory council or body shall be responsible for the elevation of the ethics and the standards of excellence of
mass media in all its phases within each group. Towards this end, each council or body is hereby authorized to adopt policies,
formulated guidelines, fix standards and promulgate reasonable rules and regulations for the operation and discipline of all mass
media under its supervision, and to administer and enforce the same. Such policies, standards, guidelines, and rules and
regulations shall be in conformity with the provisions of existing laws, especially those on national security.
"The Minister of Public Information shall be furnished copies of the rules and regulations and other issuances as well as decisions
of the regulatory councils or bodies, for purposes of information only."
Sec. 3. Sec. 4 of Presidential Decree No. 576, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 4. No mass media activity shall be undertaken by any person or entity in the Philippines without first being registered with
the regulatory council or body concerned, which shall issue certificates of registration to all applicants qualified under the
Constitution and the laws, and under its respective rules or regulations: Provided, That each council shall have the authority to
suspend or cancel such certificates of registration for such cause or causes as may be provided in the rules and the existence of

which council or body shall have duly determined: Provided, further, That no certificate of registration shall be granted in any
manner or under any condition to any of those engaged in mass media which were, in September 1972, ordered closed and/or
sequestered upon the promulgation of Proclamation No. 1081, by order of the President or the Secretary of National Defense, or
which thereafter may be ordered closed as a consequence of a finding that it has been utilized for purposes of subversion, sedition
and other subversive activities, inimical to the national security."
Sec. 4. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

Declaration on Digital Freedom

PEN International promotes literature and freedom of expression and is governed by the PEN Charter
and the principles it embodiesunhampered transmission of thought within each nation and between
all nations.
PEN recognizes the promise of digital media as a means of fulfilling the fundamental right of free
expression. At the same time, poets, playwrights, essayists, novelists, writers, bloggers, and journalists
are suffering violations of their right to freedom of expression for using digital media. Citizens in many
countries have faced severe restrictions in their access to and use of digital media, while governments
have exploited digital technologies to suppress freedom of expression and to surveil individuals. The
private sector and technology companies in particular have at times facilitated government censorship
and surveillance. PEN therefore declares the following:
1. All persons have the right to express themselves freely through digital media without fear of reprisal
or persecution.
a. Individuals who use digital media enjoy full freedom of expression protections under international
laws and standards.
b. Governments must not prosecute individuals or exact reprisals upon individuals who convey
information, opinions, or ideas through digital media.
c. Governments must actively protect freedom of expression on digital media by enacting and enforcing
effective laws and standards.
2. All persons have the right to seek and receive information through digital media.
a. Governments should not censor, restrict, or control the content of digital media, including content
from domestic and international sources.
b. In exceptional circumstances, any limitations on the content of digital media must adhere to
international laws and standards that govern the limits of freedom of expression, such as incitement to
violence.

c. Governments should not block access to or restrict the use of digital media, even during periods of
unrest or crisis. Controlling access to digital media, especially on a broad scale, inherently violates the
right to freedom of expression.
d. Governments should foster and promote full access to digital media for all persons.
3. All persons have the right to be free from government surveillance of digital media.
a. Surveillance, whether or not known by the specific intended target, chills speech by establishing the
potential for persecution and the fear of reprisals. When known, surveillance fosters a climate of selfcensorship that further harms free expression.
b. As a general rule, governments should not seek to access digital communications between or among
private individuals, nor should they monitor individual use of digital media, track the movements of
individuals through digital media, alter the expression of individuals, or generally surveil individuals.
c. When governments do conduct surveillancein exceptional circumstances and in connection with
legitimate law enforcement or national security investigationsany surveillance of individuals and
monitoring of communications via digital media must meet international due process laws and
standards that apply to lawful searches, such as obtaining a warrant by a court order.
d. Full freedom of expression entails a right to privacy; all existing international laws and standards of
privacy apply to digital media, and new laws and standards and protections may be required.
e. Government gathering and retention of data and other information generated by digital media,
including data mining, should meet international laws and standards of privacy, such as requirements
that the data retention be time-limited, proportionate, and provide effective notice to persons affected.
4. The private sector, and technology companies in particular, are bound by the right to freedom of
expression and human rights.
a. The principles stated in this declaration equally apply to the private sector.
b. Companies must respect human rights, including the right to freedom of expression, and must uphold
these rights even when national laws and regulations do not protect them.
c. Technology companies have a duty to determine how their products, services, and policies impact
human rights in the countries in which they intend to operate. If violations are likely, or violations may
be inextricably linked to the use of products or services, the companies should modify or withdraw their
proposed plans in order to respect human rights.
d. Technology companies should incorporate freedom of expression principles into core operations,
such as product designs with built-in privacy protections.

e. If their operations are found to have violated the right to freedom of expression, technology
companies should provide restitution to those whose rights were violated, even when governments do
not provide remedies.
Adopted by the PEN International Congress
Gyeongju, South Korea
September 2012