People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler
Regional Trial Court.svg
CourtManila Regional Trial Court
Branch46
Full case name
People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Santos, Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa and Rappler, Inc.
DecidedJune 15, 2020 (2020-06-15)
CitationR-MNL-19-01141-CR
Case history
Prior action(s)NBI and Keng v. Santos et al. (XVI-INV-18C-00049)[1]
Related action(s)
Alleged ownership irregularities:
  • Securities and Exchange Commission: In re: Rappler Inc. and Rappler Holdings Corporation (SP Case No. 08-17-001)
  • Court of Appeals: Rappler Inc. v. SEC (CA-G.R. SP No. 154292)
  • Pasig City RTC Branch 265: People of the Philippines v. Maria Ressa (R-PSG-19-00737-CR)

Alleged defamation:

Alleged tax evasion:

  • Pasig City RTC Branch 165: People of the Philippines v. Rappler Holdings Corp. (R-PSG-18-02983-CR)
  • Court of Tax Appeals: People of the Philippines v. Rappler Holdings Corp. and Maria Ressa (Crim. Case No. O-679)
Ruling
PonenteRainelda Estacio-Montesa
Maria Ressa was found guilty of cyberlibel
Laws applied
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
Wikisource-logo.svg Constitution of the Philippines (1987).—Article III Section 4

People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler (R-MNL-19-01141-CR), also known as the Maria Ressa cyberlibel case, is a high-profile criminal case in the Philippines, lodged against Maria Ressa, co-owner and CEO of Rappler, Inc.[2] Accused of cyberlibel, Ressa was found guilty by Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46 judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa on June 15, 2020.[3][4]:36 She is the second person in the Philippines to be found criminally liable for the offense.[5]

The case centered on an article published on Rappler by Reynaldo Santos, Jr. which accused the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines of accepting favors from Filipino-Chinese businessman Wilfredo Keng.[6] Santos, Ressa, and others were charged with cyberlibel retrospectively; the article had been published four months before the law came into force.[7][8]

Following her conviction, Ressa announced her intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals and, if necessary, the Supreme Court.[9] Rappler Inc., as a corporation, was not found liable; Santos, however, as author, was. Ressa, in her capacity of Rappler's chief executive officer, was also found liable.[9] By the time Santos was charged, he was no longer working as a journalist.[10]

The court ruled that Ressa "did not offer a scintilla of proof that they verified the imputations of various crimes in the disputed article ... [Rappler] just simply published them as news in their online publication in reckless disregard of whether they are false or not."[4]:34 The judgement also argued that Ressa had deliberately called herself an executive editor, rather than editor-in-chief, in an attempt to avoid liability.[4]:25

The ruling was criticised by human rights groups,[11][12][13][14] with the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights describing the case as part of a "pattern of intimidation" against the Philippine press.[3]

Background[]

Maria Ressa was one of those found guilty of cyberlibel as a result of People v. Santos, et al.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175) was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012, and it went into force on October 3.[7] Among the actions criminalized by this law is "cyberlibel".[7] Six days after the law commenced, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order to stop its implementation.[15][16] The Supreme Court lifted this restraining order on February 18, 2014, and upheld most of the sections of the law including the cyberlibel component.[17]

Rappler is a Filipino news website that was founded in 2012. It is online-only, but has an editorial process and its news articles are written by journalists.[18][note 1] Since Rappler's founding, its CEO and executive editor has been Maria Ressa, who was featured as one of Time's 2018 Peoples of the Year.[19][note 2][why?] On May 29, 2012, Rappler reporter Reynaldo Santos, Jr. published an article titled "CJ using SUVs of 'controversial' businessmen".[6] Among those named in the article is Wilfredo Keng, one of the richest businessmen in the Philippines. The article details Keng's involvement in a controversy surrounding former Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was later impeached. As of June 2020, the article remains online.[6]

Santos, Jr.'s article primarily relied on a 2002 Philippine Star article titled "Influential businessman eyed in ex-councilor's slay"[20] as a source.[21] It also relied on an "intelligence report" prepared that same year by the National Security Council, which the article says implicated Keng in human trafficking and drug smuggling.[6] This report, however, was not presented to the Court as evidence.[4] On February 16, 2019, although the Star believed that it had the right to keep the article online, it chose to voluntarily take the article down after Keng threatened it too with legal action.[22] Despite the conviction, Santos Jr. "stands behind" his story.[23]

On December 20, 2017, Keng filed a complaint-affidavit before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to charge Santos, Jr. and Ressa, along with Rappler's treasurer James Bitanga and six others, with cyberlibel.[24][25] The NBI's Cybercrime Department was originally sympathetic, even though the law was passed after the supposed crime, as their legal department believed that a theory of "continuous publication" still made the offense chargeable. That is to say, that because the article was still online, the server was "publishing" it again whenever it was accessed, similar to print-on-demand for print works.[8] The NBI, however, reversed and decided not to charge Rappler.[24] The Department of Justice (DOJ) later took up the case and recommended the charges be filed. The DOJ reasoned that on February 19, 2014, a single word was changed in the article: "evation" [sic] was replaced with "evasion".[26][27] When Rappler fixed a typo in the story, this counted as re-publication, so the charges could go ahead.[2]

Another issue that the DOJ opined on was the prescriptive period.[note 3] Regular libel has a prescriptive period of one year in the Philippines, but R.A. 10175 does not define a prescriptive period for cyberlibel. Therefore, the DOJ reasoned that it must be twelve years, as Act No. 3326 (1926)[28] defines.[2][29][note 4] While there was a temporary restraining order against implementation of R.A. 10175, the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Disini v. Secretary of Justice made the law go into effect as scheduled on October 3, 2012.[1] The DOJ later dropped Bitanga and the six others from the complaint, as their "part in the publication [had not been] established".[30]

Maria Ressa was arrested on the night of February 13, 2019, and spent that night in jail before being released on bail the next morning. Ressa alleges that she was purposely arrested at night so that she could not bail herself out in a timely manner.[31] As of March 2019, Ressa has paid more than ₱2 million in bail and travel bonds, the latter of which Ressa's camp labeled as "excessive".[32][33] If all of the cases filed against Ressa up to June 18, 2020, were to result in guilty verdicts after final appeal, and the sentences were all to run consecutively, she would face around 100 years in prison.[34]

People v. Santos, et al. is one of multiple legal cases filed by various government agencies against Rappler. Other cases allege ownership irregularities[note 5] and tax evasion.[35][36] Both Ressa[37] and Chel Diokno, a human rights attorney who also represents Rappler, connect a statement made by President Duterte during his 2017 State of the Nation Address[38][how?] to the outpour of legal cases against Rappler from the executive branch.[39]

Trial[]

Ressa and Santos Jr. were arraigned on May 13, 2019.[40] Their trial began on July 23, 2019.[41] Although prosecuted in the name of the "People of the Philippines", private prosecutors from three different law firms argued on behalf of convicting Ressa and Santos, Jr. personally on behalf of, and on the payroll of, Keng: these prosecutors were seasoned attorneys who had previously defended both drug lord and Sen. Bong Revilla, accused and acquitted of plunder before the Sandiganbayan.[42][43] Private prosecutors are allowed in the Philippines as a result of a change to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure enacted by the Supreme Court in 2002.[44] Ressa and Santos Jr. were represented by attorneys Theodore Te[40] (of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), the largest organization of Filipino human rights lawyers)[45] and JJ Disini.[46]

In the lead-up to the trial, Ressa's attorneys tried several times to achieve dismissal via motions to quash (February 2019),[47] motions to dismiss (April 2019),[47] and demurrers (November 2019),[48] but all such motions were denied by the Court.[49]

The verdict was originally scheduled for April 3, 2020, but it was delayed due to COVID-19.[50] On the advice of counsel, neither Ressa nor Santos Jr. testified in their own defense.[51][52][note 6]

Verdict[]

After an eight-month trial, "[which] could [have been] the quickest libel trial in recent history" according to Rappler,[53] Ressa and Santos, Jr. were both found guilty of criminal cyberlibel by Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46 judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa.[3][4]:36 The verdict was handed down on June 15, 2020.[3][4]:36 Although corporate liability against Rappler Inc. had been sought, the judge ruled that there was no corporate liability in this case.[4]:28–29[9] They were both sentenced to between six months and six years in prison,[note 7][4]:36 but are entitled to bail while they have appeals pending in higher courts.[9] They were also both assessed fines of ₱400,000 for combined "moral damages" and "exemplary damages".[4]:36

In its ruling, the Court said that Ressa "did not offer a scintilla of proof that they verified the imputations of various crimes in the disputed article. [...] They just simply published them as news in their online publication in reckless disregard of whether they are false or not";[4]:34 it also accused Ressa of committing a "clever ruse" by not calling herself an editor-in-chief, but rather an executive editor, to avoid libel liability.[4]:25 Journalists criticized the judge for this stance as "executive editor" is a common title at many publications; the title is not exclusive to Rappler.[54][55]

The Court also drew an adverse inference from Ressa and Santos Jr.'s refusal to testify, relying on the precedent of (G.R. No. L-57738), which states that defendants "owe it to themselves" to testify if they are "in the best position to refute [the] charges" as there may be no other way to affect "the complete destruction of the prosecution's prima facie case".[4]:27[56]

The ruling was handed down in person, despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and general community quarantine.[57] The clerk of court, judge, defendants, complainant Keng, along with one lawyer from each firm, were in attendance.[9] Judge Estacio-Montesa ordered her clerk to first read out her fallo, which read in part, "there is no curtailment of the right to freedom of speech and of the press", before the Court's ruling.[58][59]

After the verdict, a "vindicated"[60] Keng sued Ressa again for a different count of cyberlibel, this time over a tweet she wrote on February 15, 2019, which contained a screenshot of the 2002 Philippine Star article discussed in§ Santos Jr.'s article.[61][62][63] Keng stated that by republishing the article "[Ressa] feloniously communicated the malicious imputations against me not only to her 350,000 Twitter followers, but to anyone who has access to the internet."[61]

Appeal[]

Santos, Jr. and Ressa have the right to file an appeal, first in the Court of Appeals, and then in the Supreme Court. Should they prevail in the Court of Appeals, Keng and the government would have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.[9] Ressa plans to appeal, both on her own behalf and on the behalf of Santos, Jr.,[3][9] who Rappler Inc. is covering the legal costs of.[10] They have fifteen days to file their appeal,[64][65] and may also file a motion for reconsideration before the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC).[66]

At appeal, questions of law are most important.[65] One question of law that could be brought up at appeal is a question about the prescriptive period.[note 3] In Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the Court ruled that "cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the [Revised Penal Code], already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes "similar means" for committing libel."[67] So, it could be questioned whether or not the prescriptive period is also equal to libel under the Revised Penal Code.[68]

While a question not raised at the Regional Trial Court level may not be raised at the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals is able to consider the facts anew. The Supreme Court, however, is not generally a "trier of facts", so will only be able to consider questions of law.[65]

Reactions[]

Reaction to the case was mixed. Before the verdict in April 2020, Reporters Without Borders' annual Press Freedom Index report ranked the Philippines 136 out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom.[69] Historically, since the end of martial law under Ferdinand Marcos, the Philippines was regarded as having one of the most free presses in Asia.[70][71][72][73] People v. Santos, et al. is one of multiple legal cases filed by various government agencies against Rappler. Collectively, these have been described by The Guardian and Reporters Without Borders as "judicial harassment".[74][69]

Leni Robredo, Vice President of the Philippines and leader of the opposition,[note 8] argued that the verdict was intended as an instruction to the opposition to "keep quiet".[75] Hillary Clinton echoed a similar sentiment; while Madeleine Albright said she "stands with Maria Ressa".[76] The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) declared that the verdict "basically kills freedom of speech and of the press" and has led to a "dark day ... for all Filipinos."[77] JJ Disini, the cybercrime lawyer who brought Disini v. Secretary of Justice in an attempt to see the law overturned by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, criticized the verdict.[78]

The United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights suggested that the case was part of a "pattern of intimidation" against the Philippine press,[3] while Amnesty International called on the judiciary to quash the cases,[12] as did Human Rights Watch.[13] A group of United States Senators called the verdict a "travesty of justice" that "set dangerous precedents".[79] The European External Action Service, the diplomatic corps of the European Union, commented that the verdict "raises serious doubts over the respect for freedom of expression as well as for the rule of law in the Philippines."[80] This sentiment was echoed by David Kaye, a United Nations special rapporteur.[81] The US Department of State's response expressed "concern" over the verdict,[81][82] to which Malacañang[note 9] reacted negatively, warning of another possible "setback" in diplomatic relations if the State Department continued to, in its words, "interfere".[81]

Harry Roque, President Duterte's official spokesman suggested the law's origins were under former President Aquino, as it was passed by his administration.[77] Roque had previously been a petitioner in Disini v. Sec'y of Justice which attempted to have cyberlibel removed as an offence.[83] Roque also emphasized that the prosecution of Rappler is not politically motivated,[84] and has urged people to "respect" the ruling. He has also argued that in 2008 Duterte, as mayor of Davao, had helped a journalist jailed on a libel charge, and that Duterte does not prosecute journalists who make accusations against him.[85][86] Roque stated that Duterte's appointment of Keng's daughter, Patricia Anne C. Keng, as a member of the Philippine Commission on Women on September 19, 2019, did not affect the integrity of the verdict against Ressa.[87][88]

See also[]

Notes[]

  1. ^ As in other publications, op-eds may be written by anyone the editors feel has a noteworthy opinion.
  2. ^ Ressa was one of a group honored in 2018; despite the name, it is not a singular honor.
  3. ^ Jump up to: a b Equal to the American concept of a "statute of limitations".
  4. ^ Although the Philippines was an American colony in 1926, laws from the American colonial period are still considered valid as long as they haven't been repealed by the modern Congress, or any previous Philippine legislature like the unicameral Regular Batasang Pambansa.
  5. ^ See also: Rappler § 2018 ownership controversy and revocation of certificate of incorporation.
  6. ^ As in other nations, there is a Constitutional protection in the Philippines that gives people the right not to be a witness against themselves. See: Constitution of the Philippines (1987) . Article III Section 17 – via Wikisource.
  7. ^ Known in Philippine law as prisión correcional. See Revised Penal Code § Penalties.
  8. ^ In the Philippines, president and vice president are elected separately, and can be of opposing parties.
  9. ^ Used here with the same meaning as using "the White House" to refer to the administration of the current American president.

External links[]

References[]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b NBI and Keng v. Rappler Inc., et al., XVI-INV-18C-00049 (Philippine Department of Justice February 4, 2019).Text p. 7
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b c "Despite NBI flip-flop, DOJ to indict Rappler for cyber libel". Rappler. February 4, 2019. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Ratcliffe, Rebecca (June 15, 2020). "Journalist Maria Ressa found guilty of 'cyberlibel' in Philippines". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved June 15, 2020.
  4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa (June 15, 2020). "People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Santos, Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa and Rappler Inc". Manila Regional Trial Court. Retrieved June 15, 2020 – via Abogado.com.ph.
  5. ^ Santiago, Salvador (March 2, 2020). "Court finds Zambo Sur town dad guilty of cyber libel". Philippine News Agency. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
  6. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Santos Jr., Reynaldo; Rufo, Aries (May 29, 2012). "CJ using SUVs of 'controversial' businessmen". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  7. ^ Jump up to: a b c Orendain, Simone (October 3, 2012). "Cybercrime Law in Philippines Draws Protests". Voice of America. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  8. ^ Jump up to: a b Buan, Lian (January 19, 2018). "NBI: Rappler can be liable for cyber libel despite non-retroactive law". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  9. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Buan, Lian (June 15, 2020). "Maria Ressa, Rey Santos Jr convicted of cyber libel". Rappler. Retrieved June 15, 2020.
  10. ^ Jump up to: a b Buan, Lian (June 18, 2020). "'I'm scared to go to jail, I'm not as fearless as Maria', says Reynaldo Santos Jr". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  11. ^ Cabato, Regine (June 15, 2020). "Conviction of Maria Ressa, hard-hitting Philippine American journalist, sparks condemnation". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 16, 2020.
  12. ^ Jump up to: a b "Quash Maria Ressa and Rey Santos' conviction in the Philippines". Amnesty International. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  13. ^ Jump up to: a b "Philippines: Rappler Verdict a Blow to Media Freedom". Human Rights Watch. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  14. ^ Editorial Board (June 15, 2020). "The Philippines slides toward autocracy". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  15. ^ "SC extends TRO on cybercrime law". GMA News. February 5, 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013.
  16. ^ "SC won't lift TRO on cybercrime law". Sunstar. February 5, 2013. Archived from the original on February 12, 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013.
  17. ^ Merueñas, Mark (February 18, 2014). "Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional – SC". GMA News. Retrieved May 20, 2016.
  18. ^ "How we do our fact-check". Rappler. July 19, 2018. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  19. ^ Vick, Karl (December 11, 2018). "TIME Person of the Year 2018: The Guardians". Time. Retrieved June 17, 2020.
  20. ^ Alquitran, Non; Ocampo, Junep (August 12, 2002). "Influential businessman eyed in ex-councilor's slay". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on June 19, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via Google web cache via Archive.is.
  21. ^ Rey, Aika (February 17, 2019). "PhilStar.com takes down 2002 article on Wilfredo Keng". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  22. ^ "Philstar.com's statement on the 2002 article on Wilfredo Keng". The Philippine Star. February 16, 2019. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  23. ^ Santos Jr., Reynaldo (June 14, 2020). Former Rappler researcher Rey Santos: Anxious, but I stand by my story (YouTube video) (in Tagalog and English). Manila: Rappler. 2:08 minutes in. Well, uh, 2012 'yung story, it's been, it's been eight years since lumabas 'yung storiya. And, um, I still stand by my story, kahit eight years na ang nakakalipas.
  24. ^ Jump up to: a b Buan, Lian (February 22, 2018). "NBI junks cyber libel complaint vs Rappler". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  25. ^ Keng, Wilfredo (December 20, 2017). "Affidavit-complaint". Makati. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via Scribd.
  26. ^ Navallo, Mike (June 14, 2020). "How correcting a typo got Maria into trouble: The cyberlibel case vs Rappler". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  27. ^ "Differences in the Renato Corona Rappler article from before the cyberlibel law became law and after". Gist. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via GitHub. diff.diff
  28. ^ "An act to establish periods of prescription for violations penalized by special acts and municipal ordinances and to provide when prescription shall begin to run". Section 1.d, Act No. 3326 of December 4, 1926. Philippine Legislature.
  29. ^ Robles, Raissa (February 16, 2019). "OPINION: DOJ uses wrong law to justify charging Maria Ressa with cyber libel beyond 1-year prescriptive period". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  30. ^ Pulta, Benjamin (February 6, 2019). "DOJ approves cyber libel raps vs. Rappler". Philippine News Agency. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  31. ^ Reilly, Katie (February 21, 2019). "The Message Behind Maria Ressa's Cyber Libel Arrest". Time. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  32. ^ Buan, Lian (March 29, 2019). "How much has Rappler been asked to pay for bail and bonds?". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  33. ^ Navallo, Mike. "Ressa camp protests 'excessive' travel bond". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  34. ^ Moran, Padraig (June 18, 2020). "Facing possible jail time totalling 100 years, journalist Maria Ressa says she won't stop fighting for justice". CBC News. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  35. ^ "Rappler's incorporation papers revoked by SEC". ABS-CBN News. January 15, 2018. Retrieved January 17, 2018.
  36. ^ "Subpoenas sent to Rappler's Ressa, Bitanga for tax raps". ABS-CBN News. April 17, 2018. Retrieved April 18, 2018.
  37. ^ Rita, Joviland (June 16, 2020). "Maria Ressa contradicts Roque claim that Duterte values press freedom". GMA News Online. Retrieved June 19, 2020. After the SONA in July 2017, Ressa said the first subpoena was issued against them. 'Within a few months in January 2018, we received a shutdown order, a revocation of our permit or license to operate.' 
  38. ^ "Duterte snipes at Rappler". Manila Standard. July 25, 2017. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  39. ^ Diokno, Chel (June 14, 2020). Forum on the cyber libel verdict against Maria Ressa, Rappler (YouTube live stream). Rappler. Event occurs at 10:49. We fast forward to three years later, July 2017, the president now is Duterte, he issues a State of the Nation Address where he mentions Rappler and says that Rappler is fully owned by Americans. Soon after that, a week later, Rappler received its first subpoena, and then that became a barrage of cases.
  40. ^ Jump up to: a b Te, Theodore; Ressa, Maria (May 13, 2019). Maria Ressa arraigned for cyber libel; SC may be next option (YouTube video). Rappler. Event occurs at 0:00. Retrieved June 18, 2020. Te (Ressa's attorney): Ah, yes, the arraignment was conducted this morning and the information was read to the accused and both the accused did not enter a plea, so based on the Rules of Court, the judge entered a plea of not guilty for both of the accused.
  41. ^ Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (July 23, 2019). "Philippines libel trial of journalist critical of Rodrigo Duterte begins". The Guardian. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  42. ^ Buan, Lian (December 7, 2018). "Sandiganbayan acquits Bong Revilla of plunder". Rappler. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  43. ^ Buan, Lian (August 17, 2019). "Keng gets Peter Lim, Bong Revilla lawyers in case vs Maria Ressa". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  44. ^ Re: Proposed amendments to Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC (Supreme Court of the Philippines en banc April 10, 2002).Text
  45. ^ "Lawyers' group denounces raps against members". ABS-CBN News. July 20, 2019. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  46. ^ Griffiths, James (June 15, 2020). "Philippines journalist Maria Ressa found guilty of 'cyber libel' in latest blow to free press". CNN Business. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  47. ^ Jump up to: a b Fernandez, Ria (April 15, 2019). "Manila judge rejects Maria Ressa's motion to dismiss cyberlibel case". Manila Bulletin. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  48. ^ Requejo, Rey E. (November 20, 2019). "Court to hear cyberlibel case vs. Ressa, reporter". Manila Standard. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  49. ^ "Court to resume cyberlibel hearing vs Maria Ressa". Abogado. December 4, 2019. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  50. ^ "Forum on the cyber libel verdict against Maria Ressa, Rappler". Rappler. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  51. ^ Pulta, Benjamin (June 15, 2020). "Manila court convicts Rappler CEO, writer on cyber libel". Philippine News Agency. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  52. ^ Nicole-Anne C. Lagrimas (June 15, 2020). "Court convicts Maria Ressa, ex-Rappler researcher of cyber libel". GMA News Online. Retrieved June 18, 2020. [N]either Ressa nor Santos took the witness stand.
  53. ^ Buan, Lian (June 2, 2020). "Verdict on Rappler, Maria Ressa cyber libel case out June 15". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  54. ^ Nery, John (June 16, 2020). "A nauseous verdict, an ignorant judge". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  55. ^ "Statement: Network condemns guilty verdict in cyber-libel case, says reasoning is based on falsehood, ignorance". Consortium on Democracy and Disinformation. June 16, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020. This "nomenclature" may be new to her, but it is not limited to Rappler and, it is, in fact so commonplace that to declare it "a clever ruse" to avoid liability shows Judge Estacio-Montesa's apparent unfamiliarity with the terrain that is journalism.
  56. ^ "Wrong move? Judge Montesa surprised why Ressa, co-accused didn't take the stand". Abogado. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  57. ^ Bengali, Shashank (June 15, 2020). "Philippine American journalist Maria Ressa convicted in cybercrime case". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  58. ^ "Libel in the court". Scientia. University of the Philippines Diliman College of Science. June 16, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via Medium.
  59. ^ Buan, Lian (June 15, 2020). "What Maria Ressa conviction means for reporting confidential sources". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  60. ^ Davila, Karen (June 15, 2020). "READ: This is the statement of Wilfredo Keng after the court's verdict against Rappler's Maria Ressa & Rey Santos". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved June 21, 2020 – via Twitter.[non-primary source needed]
  61. ^ Jump up to: a b "Maria Ressa faces another cyber libel suit by same businessman over 2019 tweet". CNN Philippines. June 19, 2020. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  62. ^ Buan, Lian (June 19, 2020). "Keng sues Ressa for cyber libel anew over a 2019 tweet". Rappler. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  63. ^ Ressa, Maria (February 15, 2019). "Here's the 2002 article on the "private businessman" who filed the cyberlibel case, which was thrown out by the NBI then revived by the DOJ. #HoldTheLine". Retrieved June 21, 2020 – via Twitter.[non-primary source needed]
  64. ^ "Philippine journalist Maria Ressa vows to 'keep fighting' after jail sentence for libel". Press Gazette. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  65. ^ Jump up to: a b c Ramon G. Songco; Jewelle Ann Lou P. Santos (April 3, 2019). "Appeals in the Philippines". SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via Lexology.
  66. ^ Christian de Lano Deiparine (June 17, 2020). "LEGAL REMEDIES | Ressa lawyer says probation 'on the table' as next step". News5. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  67. ^ Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al. v. Secretary of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 203335 (Supreme Court of the Philippines February 11, 2014).Text
  68. ^ Buan, Lian (February 14, 2019). "Maria Ressa arrest tests the bounds of Philippine cyber libel law". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  69. ^ Jump up to: a b "Philippines : Holding the line against Duterte's attacks". Reporters Without Borders. April 20, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  70. ^ Johnson, Howard (January 17, 2018). "Why Rappler is raising Philippine press freedom fears". BBC News. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  71. ^ Melinda Quintos de Jesus; et al. (2004). Press Freedom in the Philippines: A Study in Contradictions. Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. p. 7. ISBN 978-971-91955-6-6. [T]he courts have established a record of decisions liberally interpreting the law in favor of the press. [...] Nowhere in Southeast Asia are government officials so accessible to the press. Cabinet ministers are available from the earliest hours to answer questions from radio show hosts on the news of the day involving their responsibilities.
  72. ^ Doronila, Amando; Coronel, Sheila S. (January 10, 2014). Losing control : freedom of the press in Asia (PDF). Canberra: Australian National University. pp. xii, 148. ISBN 978-1-925021-44-8. OCLC 862728315. (Doronila) [T]he press in the Philippines is probably the most unfettered in the region and replicates the western models of a free press[.] (Coronel) Nowadays, the Philippines boasts a rowdy and vibrant press which thinks of itself as the freest in Asia. With the fall of the Marcos regime, a 14-year-old system of media controls collapsed overnight.
  73. ^ Shafer, Richard (1991). "Press Freedom in the Philippines: A Legacy of American Colonialism". Journal of the Asian Media Information and Communication Centre. Taylor & Francis. 18 (1): 3–10. doi:10.1080/01296612.1991.11726348. ISSN 0129-6612.
  74. ^ Ratcliffe, Rebecca (June 15, 2020). "Journalist Maria Ressa found guilty of 'cyberlibel' in Philippines". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  75. ^ "Robredo: Maria Ressa guilty verdict tells gov't critics to 'keep quiet or you're next'". ABS-CBN News. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via Reuters, Agence France-Presse.
  76. ^ Flores, Helen (June 17, 2020). "Hillary, Albright back Ressa on libel case". The Philippine Star. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  77. ^ Jump up to: a b Pelayo, Marje (June 16, 2020). "Malacanang reminds critics: Cyberlibel Act passed under Aquino Administration". UNTV News. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  78. ^ Buan, Lian (January 22, 2018). "Rappler libel complaint dangerous for media, bloggers – cyber lawyer". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  79. ^ Tomacruz, Sofia (June 16, 2020). "U.S. senators warn verdict vs Ressa sets 'dangerous precedent'". Rappler. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  80. ^ (June 16, 2020). "Philippines: Statement by the Spokesperson on the conviction of Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos". European External Action Service. European Commission. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  81. ^ Jump up to: a b c Pazzibugan, Dona Z. (June 18, 2020). "US State Department, EU, UN official 'concerned' about Ressa cyberlibel conviction". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  82. ^ Sippy, Zachariah W.; Ball, Benjamin; et al. (June 16, 2020). "As Maria Ressa '86 holds the line, we must act now". The Daily Princetonian. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  83. ^ Roque, Harry (March 2, 2014). "High court on libel: Lost in overbreadth". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 6, 2020.
  84. ^ "Maria Ressa, ex-Rappler writer can seek probation to avoid jail time — Roque". CNN Philippines. June 16, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  85. ^ Esguerra, Darryl John (June 15, 2020). "Duterte supports press freedom, never sued journalists – Palace". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  86. ^ "Palace maintains Supreme Court's ruling on libel". Presidential Communications Operations Office. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  87. ^ Ranada, Pia (October 9, 2019). "Duterte gives Wilfredo Keng's daughter a government post". Rappler. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  88. ^ Rita, Joviland (June 17, 2020). "Appointments of Judge Montesa's husband, Keng's daughter do not affect integrity of verdict against Ressa —Roque". GMA News Online. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
Retrieved from ""