“IF we can’t do our job, our rights will be lost.”
Rappler chief executive officer Maria Ressa yesterday vowed not to be silenced even after the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46 found her and former researcher and staff writer Reynaldo Santos Jr. guilty of committing cyber libel over a 2012 article that linked businessman Wilfredo Keng to alleged illegal activities.
“Taken alone it is somewhat devastating because it says we’re wrong but we will keep fighting. It’s a blow but not unexpected,” Ressa said in a media briefing with Santos and her lawyer Theodore Te, a former spokesman of the Supreme Court.
“I think we’re redefining what the new world is gonna look like, what journalism is to become. Are we going to lose freedom of the press? Will it be death by a thousand cuts? Or are we going to hold the line so that we are going to protect the rights enshrined in the Constitution even if those in power attacks you directly?” she also said.
Ressa added: “Freedom of the press is the foundation of every single right you have as a Filipino citizen. We’re at the precipice. If we fall over we’re no longer a democracy.”
Ressa appealed to members of “journalists in this room, Filipinos listening, to protect your rights. Freedom of the press is the foundation of democracy. If we can’t do our job, our rights will be lost.”
Santos said he was saddened by the decision even as he said that the issue was not only about him or Rappler since “it could happen to other journalists and even ordinary citizens.”
Ressa and Santos are the first journalists in the country to be convicted under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, or Republic Act No. 10175, which was signed into law on September 12, 2012 during the administration of former president Noynoy Aquino.
Santos wrote the May 2012 article alleging that Keng lent his sports utility vehicle to impeached chief justice Renato Corona. The story likewise claimed that Keng was put under surveillance at one time by the National Security Council for his supposed involvement in human and drug trafficking.
Keng denied the allegations.
Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa found Ressa and Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the cyber libel law and sentenced them to a minimum or six months to six years in jail.
The accused were each ordered to pay the amount of P200,000 as moral damages and a similar amount in exemplary damages.
Estacio-Montesa exonerated Rappler from any corporate liability.
“Judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Reynaldo Santos Jr. and Maria Angelita Ressa guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 4 (c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and are each hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from six months and one day as prision correccional to six years of prision correccional as maximum,” Estacio-Montesa’s verdict said.
In finding Ressa and Santos guilty of the offense, Estacio-Montesa said her position as Rappler’s executive editor was a ruse to avoid liability similar to how editors-in-chief in newspapers can be held liable for libel under the Revised Penal Code.
“They used the nomenclature ‘executive editor’ instead, although clearly the nature of the functions she discharges is still that of an editor as contemplated by law,” Estacio-Montesa said.
She added that the defense’s theory that Ressa had no participation in the assailed article was untenable, pointing out that: “It should be stressed that neither the publisher nor the editor can disclaim liability for libelous articles that appear on their paper by simply saying that they had no participation in the preparation of the same.”
The court also dismissed the testimony of Rappler executive Chai Hofilena that Ressa did not exercise editorial control in Rappler, noting that she slipped during the pre-trial that Ressa, as the chief executive officer, oversaw the operation of the entire organization and takes care of its financial aspect.
“Being the editor and business manager of Rappler Inc. the claim that Ressa had no participation in the subject article does not shield her from liability. It is not a matter of whether she was actually involved in preparing or editing the subject article, because the law simply states that she as editor and business manager is liable,” the court stressed.
The court said it found the article written by Santos to be defamatory to Keng as the prosecution was able to disprove as false the allegation of illegal activities thrown at the complainant.
It said that the article dishonored, discredited and put Keng into ridicule and created in the minds of readers that he has a disgraceful reputation.
As to the defense’s contention that the article was written and published on May 29, 2012 even before the Cybercrime Prevention Act became a law in September of the same year, the court pointed to a re-publication of the article in February 19, 2014, when the law was already effective.
The court dismissed the defense’s claim that the article was merely updated to correct an alleged typographical error.
The court said Santos should be faulted for not verifying the allegations against Keng.
It also said both accused did not issue a clarificatory article despite having the time to do so and the numerous requests made by Keng through his counsels to correct the information in the subject article.
This, the court said, showed actual malice on the part of the accused.
The court also stood by its finding that the offense has not prescribed because the prescription period for filing a case is 12 years.
It explained that the date of reckoning of the prescription period is on the date of the republication of the subject article.
Estacio-Montesa in her ruling also took the time to explain that the right to free speech and freedom of the press cannot and should not be used as a shield against accountability.
“The law sets out parameter for this accountability. If a person is found violating this law in accordance with the parameters it provides, then he or she is penalized and will be found accountable,” the court said.
“The Courts are tasked to strike a balance between the enforcement of one’s right to speak his mind and the protection of another person’s right against defamation of his honor and reputation without regard to the stature of the personalities involved. This is what happened here,” it added.
Estacio-Montesa explained that while the Court was mandated to dispense justice, it did so not only to protect the Fourth Estate’s freedom of expression and of the press but also to protect the rights of private individuals like Keng.
She likewise said her decision was not influenced by the government or any of its officials as the complainant was a private person out to clear his name after being branded as a human and drug trafficker and contraband smuggler.
Estacio-Montesa said that in the age of internet and social media, making the keyboard mightier than the pen or the sword and the proverbial admonition “think before you click” becomes even more relevant when it comes to online news organizations with a vast plantilla of journalists under its employ.”
“If a private individual, a so-called netizen, can be held accountable for any defamatory posts or comments in the internet, so too must journalistic accountability and responsibility be brought to bear upon online news organizations since the extent of its influence, as powered by the internet, goes beyond the physical limitation of printed publications,” she added.
The judge said her decision should not be misconstrued as a curtailment of the right to freedom of expression and of the press.
“Each person, journalist or not, has that constitutionally guaranteed right to freely express, write and make known his opinion. But with the highest ideals in mind, what society expects is a responsible free press. It is in acting responsibly that freedom is given its true meaning,” she added.
Only the prosecution and defense parties and their counsels were allowed to enter the courtroom as the verdict was read to ensure compliance with safety and health protocols amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The judge agreed to allow both Ressa and Santos to continue to be out on bail.
Te said they will appeal the decision within the 15-day period to file a motion for reconsideration.
Aside from the cyber libel case, Ressa and other Rappler officials have also been slapped with a P108 million tax evasion case while the Securities and Exchange Commission revoked its business registration due to alleged violation of the constitutional prohibition on foreign ownership of mass media.
The cyber libel is among the numerous lawsuits filed against Ressa and Rappler that have drawn global concern about a free and open media in the Southeast Asian country.
#HOLDTHELINE
Rappler management, in a statement, said: “Today’s verdict sets a dangerous precedent not only for journalists but for everyone online. It weakens the ability of journalists to hold power to account as the one-year prescription period of libel is extended to 12 years. Even before the cybercrime law took effect, Filipino journalists and press freedom advocates had been pushing for the decriminalization of libel. This ruling, coupled with the cybercrime law, has made the space for a free press, free speech, and free expression even tighter and narrower.”
It added: “The decision today marks not the rule of law, but the rule of law twisted to suit the interests of those in power who connive to satisfy their mutually beneficial personal and political agenda. Today marks diminished freedom and more threats to democratic rights supposedly guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution, especially in the context of a looming anti-terrorism law.”
The management called on members of the media industry to remain cautious against press freedom repression. — With Reuters
