In just a short span of time the Rappler vs Philippine Government issue is already giving us a peek into two potential Supreme Court cases (so far) that could clarify a couple of legal conundrums:

1. Whether or not certain provisions in Philippine Depository Receipts issued by media companies that tend to cede fundamental corporate decisions to a foreign PDR holder constitute such gross violation as to warrant the nullification of its SEC registration instantly and without room for a curing period (as in the case of SEC's recent decision against Rappler); and

2. Whether or not a news article published BEFORE the effectivity of the Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 can still violate said law since it is regarded as a continuous publication and should therefore be exempt from the non-retro-activity of criminal laws (as in the case of the libel complaint against Rappler).

Whether arising from fishing expedition by an allegedly vindictive administration or not, IF these two cases go up to the Supreme Court they could potentially provide jurisprudence that would clarify or define, first, the rules on PDR issuances, and, second, the doctrine of non-retro-activity of penal laws as they apply to news articles and other publications.

Every cloud has a silver lining, as they say.