(Eagle News)—The National Bureau of Investigation has asked its internal affairs division to look into Rappler’s allegations NBI agents who served the arrest warrant against the news site’s executive editor Maria Ressa for cyber libel harassed staff in the process.
In a letter to Justice Undersecretary Adrian Sugay, NBI director Dante Gierran said the NBI’s IAD would make a report on the incident “as soon as possible.”
“Rest assured that we will take this matter with the utmost objectivity and fairness,” Gierran said.
Rappler editor Miriam Go said the NBI agents, who served the warrant against Ressa on Feb. 13, past 5 p.m., had stopped one of their reporters from taking a video of the arrest.
According to the reporter, when asked why, one of the agents replied “Because I say so.”
The cyber libel charges against Ressa, Rappler and its former reporter Reynaldo Santos Jr. were filed by businessman Wilfredo Keng, whom Rappler described in the assailed article, citing a supposed intelligence report, as a “controversial” businessman with “alleged links” to human trafficking and illegal drugs.
In indicting the three, the Department of Justice said the article, published in May 2014, contained elements of libel.
The DOJ also junked Ressa camp’s argument they could no longer be charged as the prescriptive period of libel was one year.
The DOJ said the three were being charged with cyber libel instead, which, according to the Cybercrime Prevention Act, entailed punishment a degree higher than that of libel.
Based on Republic Act 3326, which governs “special laws” such as the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the DOJ said the prescriptive period for such an offense was 12 years.
Although the DOJ agreed with the argument of Ressa’s camp the May 2012 publication of the article was not covered by the cyber libel law which was enacted in September of the same year, the department said the editing of the article in 2014 was covered by the same.
According to the DOJ, based on the multiple publication rule put forward by the Supreme Court in a previous case, the editing was tantamount to a republication of the assailed article, and therefore constituted a separate offense.