Good Morning Your Honors!

The motion for today’s debate is THW no longer require 100% Filipino ownership for media companies.

We in the opposition argues that we should maintain the status quo or that the 100% Filipino ownership
should be retained.

Today as first speaker, I will be talking to you about why the Constitutional Mandate of 100% Filipino
ownership control and management of mass media shall be upheld. In relation to this issue of
constitutionality, the novelty and importance of this matter does not gravitate towards the derogation
of freedom of the press, speech and information.

Our second speaker will be talking about the following arguments that there is no guarantee that the
relaxation of the 100% Filipino ownership for media companies will attract foreign investors and boost
the economy. That there is a need to first strengthen our national policy and regulations before allowing
foreign ownership in media companies.

Our third speaker will rebut the negative team and sum up our team case.

As the leader of opposition, I first would like to say that we disagree with the government’s motion
because it is in violation of the 1987 Constitution.

According to Article 16, Section 11 of the Philippine Constitution “The ownership and management of
mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines…”: “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.” No foreign company before had dared to skirt this
constitutional total ban on foreigners in media outfits. Consistent with the national interest and largely
for national security reasons, the Constitution requires 100% Filipino ownership of media.

Such Constitutional mandate was in placed to insure that Public awareness of political developments,
are fostered by an independent media. And looking into the history and events of our country, it show
to illustrate how the critical the mass media is and how it can shape a country’s democracy.

The close relationship between media and politics is not new in the Philippines. In fact, Philippine media
are “products of a turbulent history” and that the “tradition that defines Philippine journalism is
polemical and political,” whereby the rise of media has been closely knit with political upheavals. During
the Spanish colonisation, heroes Jose Rizal, Marcelo H. Del Pilar, and Graciano Lopez Jaena, to name a
few, used journalism to wage a campaign on independence which triggered the Philippine revolution.
Similarly during the Marcos dictatorship, journalists helped in the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution
who continuously wrote about the Marcos family despite risking their freedom and their lives. However,
in the coming decades after, mass media chose to become primarily a chronicler of events, government
watchdogs, and/or entertainment media. This nationalistic fervor is to be ingrained in the spirit of
succeeding Filipino journalists throughout our nation’s history. Perhaps equally dramatic as the
Propaganda Movement during the Spanish regime was the struggle of the so-called alternative press
during the Marcos regime, whose collective vision saw fulfillment in the EDSA Poeple Power Revolution
in 1986. 

The Philippine press is known as the freest and liveliest in Asia. This came to be because of the role that
media etched in the History of the Philippines which paved the way for us to enjoy the decmocracy that
we have now. Because of the libertarian and free enterprise principles institutionalized by the American
colonizers, it essentially played a “watchdog” function and has often taken an adversarial stance against
government. The freedom enjoyed by Philippine press (media), however, has become a double-edged
sword. Being commercial in nature, the press is dependent on advertising as its lifeblood.

We in the opposition, argues that if we allow foreign investors or entity to take part on the control of
the Mass media in the Philippines, this tends to discredit the efforts and role which media took part in
carving the Philippine independence.

Lastly, this constitutional mandate does not derogate the freedom of the press, speech and information.
We say yes to press freedom – but no to violations of the Philippine constitution and foreign
intervention in the internal affairs of the country. We agree that freedom of the press, speech and
information are non-derogable and non-negotiable. However, freedom of the press is not an absolute
right when it violates the constitution, the fundamental law of the land, and the nation’s other laws, as
well as existing regulations. No one and no entity is above the law.

End