While the accused are still presumed innocent and are now exercising their right to a fair trial, I have already been portrayed by the article as a criminal to the whole world

Quest for truth Businessman Wilfredo Keng leaves a court after testifying at the cyberlibel trial against online news outfit Rappler. AFP

As hearing for the cyber libel case against Rappler chief executive officer (CEO) Maria Ressa and former researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr. got under way, businessman Wilfredo Keng sought P50 million in damages over the charge.

During the hearing yesterday at the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46, Keng took the witness stand and testified on his new affidavit executed 18 September, saying that he is demanding P25 million in moral damages and P25 million in exemplary damages, which, he said, he would donate to charity.

“I want to send the message to members of the media that they cannot simply destroy a person’s reputation and character, through irresponsible, inaccurate, malicious and unjust reporting, without grave consequences,” Keng said in the affidavit.

Keng in his affidavit referred to the subject article which came out in 2012 as having been republished in 2014, in which it was indicated that it was “updated,” without anything new added in the previous release.

“I can see no good intention from the accused’s republication of the article. In fact, one of the accused, Ressa, still continues to defame me,” the businessman said in his affidavit.

Ressa also recently posted, on her Twitter account, an article from the Philippine Star dated 12 August 2002, which “falsely and libelously concluded” that Keng was responsible for the death of Chika Go.

The article was already brought down by the Philippine Star but “Ressa still reposted it in her Twitter account in February 2019, despite the filing of the case against her.”

“Going into the courtroom this morning, while I experienced some degree of nervousness and hesitation largely brought about by my private nature and upbringing, the dominant feeling was still one of great relief — finally, I can be heard,” Keng said in his message.

The businessman added that the publication in the Rappler website of the libelous article “which maligned my character and reputation” has never been in dispute.

“It was admitted by the accused. In some ways, I envy them. While they are still presumed innocent and are now exercising their right to a fair trial, despite their admission that the libelous article remains posted on their website for anyone and everyone to see, I have already been portrayed by the very same article as a criminal to the whole world,” Keng averred.

He added his earnest efforts to have the libelous article removed, “or at least the publication of my side, was likewise attested to by my counsel, who made the request to Rappler on my behalf.”

The counsel testified about furnishing Rappler with a letter from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which stated Keng’s clean record, “to belie the allegations in the libelous article that I was involved in drugs.”

“For seven months beginning August 2016, he (the counsel) had been communicating with a Rappler representative and a Rappler reporter assigned to write a new article based on the communications with my counsel. Even the Rappler reporter herself testified that while she indeed prepared an article, it was never published,” he added.

Keng added with great reluctance, he included in his testimony “the humiliation and suffering the libelous article has wrought upon my family and myself.”

“That I have to continue to relive this painful experience during the course of the trial is a small price to pay in my quest for justice and the truth,” he continued.

“My legal team has built a very strong case establishing the guilt of the accused in the manner provided by law. While I leave the presentation of the merits and substantive arguments in their very capable hands, I say this: I am deeply grateful for our system of constitutional democracy and steadfast rule of law,” the trader indicated.

He noted that through the judicial and legal system, the strength, depth and meaning of democratic freedoms, such as those upholding the right to free speech, “is vigilantly balanced by corollary democratic accountabilities such as those requiring the maintenance of a responsible and diligent press.”

“This balance we must vigilantly guard lest our freedoms serve to oppress rather than liberate the lives they are meant to enhance,” he added.

Keng said his pursuit is not a fight against the Philippine press, but rather an assertion of his rights “and an act to protect my reputation.”

“Truth-telling in the media leaves no room for an unbridled license or impenetrable shield against the dictates of conscience and the rule of law. The degree of a person’s culpability and responsibility should be directly commensurate to the extent and pervasiveness of his or her medium,” he noted.

I want to send the message to members of the media that they cannot simply destroy a person’s reputation and character, through irresponsible, inaccurate, malicious and unjust reporting, without grave consequences.

He concluded that at the end of the day, the case is no longer about his private complaint and is about the Filipino’s right to be protected against “the immeasurable damage of online libel.”

On the other hand, Atty. Theodore Te, counsel of Rappler, objected to the demand for damages, saying it was never included in the charges.

“It is a matter of record that during pretrial, it was stipulated that the information does not contain any amount of damages being sought. The pretrial statement of issues also does not contain any statement as to any amount of monetary damages,” Te said.