(Eagle News)—Vice President Leni Robredo has slammed the arrest of Rappler’s chief executive officer and executive editor Maria Ressa for cyber libel, calling it an affront to press freedom.
“Dine-denounce natin in the strongest terms, na sa panahon ngayon, iyong political harassment dahil sa pagpapahayag ng saloobin, dahil sa pagpapahayag ng pangongontra sa ibang mga polisiya, nagiging dahilan para supilin iyong freedom, hindi lang ng members ng media, pero ng mga tao na naglalakas ng loob,” Robredo said.
Robredo also hailed Ressa, who she said has shown “bravery” from the start.
She expressed hope her arrest would not have a chilling effect on those who wish to speak their minds against the administration.
“Nakakalungkot kasi ito, isa na namang yugto na nagpapakita sa atin kung gaano iniipit iyong mga naglalakas-loob na makapagsalita laban sa mga polisiya ng administrasyon,” Robredo said.
Nothing to do with press freedom
But in a television interview, Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo said Ressa’s case had nothing to do with press freedom, and only showed that authorities were upholding the rule of law.
“If you commit a crime or what appears to be a crime, you need to be held accountable for it, peryodista ka man o hindi,” Panelo said.
The charges filed by businessman Wilfredo Keng for violation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act against Ressa, Rappler Inc. and its former reporter Reynaldo Santos stem from a Rappler article that described him as “controversial,” as having “shady deals,” and as being linked to human trafficking and smuggling activities.
The article, published in 2012, claimed Keng lent then-Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was facing an impeachment case at that time, a sport utility vehicle.
Keng has repeatedly denied he was the owner of the vehicle.
Keng filed the charges after Rappler refused to take down the article but edited it in 2014 instead.
Elements of libel
The Department of Justice ordered the indictment of Ressa, Rappler and Santos after ruling the article contained all the elements of libel.
The DOJ also debunked the arguments of Ressa’s camp that they could not be held liable for violation of the cybercrime law as the Cybercrime Prevention Act was only enacted in September 2012, a month after the article was published.
The DOJ, citing Soriano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, said under the “multiple publication rule” a “single defamatory statement, if published several times, gives rise to as many offenses as there are publications.”
The DOJ said this means that the editing of the article in 2014, which is covered by the cybercrime law, constituted a separate offense.
As for the argument of Ressa’s camp that they could no longer be held liable as the prescriptive period of one year for libel had already expired, assuming an offense was actually committed, the DOJ said this did not hold.
The prescriptive period refers to the period within which charges should have been filed.
It noted Ressa and the others were charged with a violation of of the cybercrime law in the first place.
Based on this law, the DOJ said, the punishment for this offense was a degree higher than that of libel.
The DOJ said that based on R.A. No. 3326, which governs the prescription of offenses punished by special laws, such as the cybercrime law, “the prescriptive period of the offense charged is 12 years..”