Ressa cyberlibel case set to test PH's rule of law
THE arrest of Rappler CEO Maria Ressa late Wednesday by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation ( NBI) has sparked all kinds of claims and charges concerning the rule of law and the state of press freedom in the country. Political candidates, individuals and organizations go to town issuing fevered statements to grab public attention.
It will not serve the interest of justice and the public interest for the case to just serve as a football which everyone is free to kick around. The bare facts of the case deserve serious and fair study, in a court of law, where the charges can be proved or disproved.
The February 12 arrest warrant, issued by Judge Rainelda Estacio- Montesa of Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46, ordered the NBI to arrest Ressa and Reynaldo Santos Jr., a former Rappler researcher, for allegedly violating Section 4 of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
The warrant stemmed from a revived complaint by businessman Wilfredo Keng over an allegedly “malicious” or libelous story published by Rappler on May 29, 2012.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act did not become law until about four months after the story — which claimed that Keng owned the sport utility vehicle that the late Chief Justice Renato Corona used during his impeachment trial — was published.
Keng argues that since Rappler “republished” the story in 2014, an unlawful act still occurred. Ressa claims the change was only to correct minor punctuation errors. Keng also takes issue with the story quoting an intelligence report wrongly associating him with human trafficking and illegal drugs, years after it was first posted online.
In a January 10 decision, the Department of Justice ( DoJ) recommended that the Manila court indict Ressa and Santos.
Ressa’s arrest has drawn much criticism from press freedom advocates in the country and abroad. The National Union of Journalists in the Philippines ( NUJP) branded Ressa’s arrest as persecution.
In turn, the Southeast Asian Press Alliance ( Seapa), Human Rights Watch Asia and Reporters Without Borders have joined in condemning the arrest.
We think equal attention must also be given to the statement issued by Keng, the libel complainant.
The statement lays out the facts, the history and the issues of the case in such detail, that any interested reader can decide whether this case has substance or basis to proceed.
Keng’s determination to pursue his case to the very end is a fair one. He is perfectly within his rights to demand justice from our legal system.
Ressa and her co- defendants are equally within their rights to defend themselves against all charges.
The case is complicated by the grandiose claims of some sectors that the very fate of press freedom in the country is at stake in this case.
It is contended that Rappler and its editors had the protection of the bill of rights in our Constitution when they did what they did to Keng’s reputation.
The contention between the protection of reputation and the protection of the right of speech, and the balancing of these rights go to the heart of this case.
This is a matter for the court to decide. Indeed, given the seriousness of the issue of press freedom and the growing tide of public sentiment for and against the characters in this legal drama, this cyberlibel suit could be a precedent- setting case that may find its way all the way up to the Supreme Court for definitive judgment.