PDRs

If ‘PDRs’ are unconstitutional, why did Duterte sign the law renewing GMA Network’s franchise even though it has ‘PDRs’ patterned after ABS-CBN’s?

February 26, 2020 7 Comments

By Raissa Robles

Solicitor-General Jose Calida has made it very, very clear that Philippine Depositary Receipts or PDRs are bad for media companies.

PDRs are financial instruments sold to local and foreign investors by ABS-CBN through a separate company called ABS-CBN Holdings Corp. When ABS-CBN gives out dividends, ABS-CBN Holdings obtains part of the dividends, which are then distributed to the PDR holders, minus a management fee.

Calida said ABS-CBN’s use of PDRs violates the Constitution which requires media companies to be 100% Filipino-owned. He warned that “criminal liability is also imposed on those who violate foreign equity restrictions and evade nationalisation laws of the Philippines through various modes of proxy arrangement, making it appear as legal, but the entirety of the arrangement is to accomplish a transaction not allowed under Philippine laws”. To read the rest, please click on this link.

arc on Contrary to what Senator Lacson claims, my blog post on the stealthy and hasty insertion of the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law has no malice: “saka, sabi ni ping lacson he will see to it that his pet law is not perverted. kaso, what if…” Jul 20, 05:54
raissa on Contrary to what Senator Lacson claims, my blog post on the stealthy and hasty insertion of the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law has no malice: “He didn’t and I found the proof to show this.” Jul 19, 21:25
raissa on Contrary to what Senator Lacson claims, my blog post on the stealthy and hasty insertion of the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law has no malice: “They claim they can but there are so many questions about it, I think the AFP would hesitate. I don’t…” Jul 19, 21:20
Epitacio Diomampo on Contrary to what Senator Lacson claims, my blog post on the stealthy and hasty insertion of the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law has no malice: “Isang tanong po… Pwede po bang i-implement na ang isang ACT kahit wala pang IRR?” Jul 18, 09:09
arc on Contrary to what Senator Lacson claims, my blog post on the stealthy and hasty insertion of the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law has no malice: “who was being malicious? I think it was the one that acted like a ninja and pushed section 25 among…” Jul 17, 05:06
karlgarcia on Contrary to what Senator Lacson claims, my blog post on the stealthy and hasty insertion of the dangerous Section 25 in the Anti-Terrorism Law has no malice: “Thanks for your firsthand knowledge. The commenters here and socmed are correct to call the Anti- Terror law a terror…” Jul 15, 13:51
netty on Senator Panfilo Lacson hastily inserted the new Anti-Terrorism Law’s ‘dangerous’ Section 25 empowering Duterte officials to ‘designate’ anyone a terrorist: “I can smell a never TRUMPER here. Then sue, the article is talking about benefits, free college, health and welfare…” Jul 15, 08:39