This Note aims to highlight a major gap in Philippine media law: the incongruence between the Constitutional right to the freedom of the press and the Constitutional equity restriction on mass media. It aims to tackle three distinct but related legal issues. Its first goal is to argue, using the lenses of both textual analysis and the framework of postcolonial constitutionalism, that in a conflict between the right to freedom of speech and the Constitution’s 100% Filipino-owned equity restriction on mass media, the latter should prevail. Its second goal is to render an analysis of the ongoing case of Rappler v. SEC and assess the case both on its own merits and based on the postcolonial framework. Its third goal is, using the uses and gratifications theory of the press, to stimulate a discussion for future legal scholars as to the continued relevance of the mass media equity restriction in today’s age.