The Ressa case in proper perspective

Rappler head Maria Ressa’s recent arrest for the crime of cyber libel has opened a can of worms. Ressa says her arrest threatens press freedom. The Department of Justice (DoJ), which authorized the filing of the case, asserts otherwise.

“Arguing the legal merits of this complicated case at the public forum will create further polarization in what is already a divisive controversy.

Ressa’s case began in May 2012, when her online news forum published a report stating that businessman Wilfredo Keng had been lending high-end utility vehicles to then Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Renato Corona. That report, written by Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr., linked Keng to illegal activities.

A few changes in the report were made in May 2014, but the report remained on the Rappler site even until 2017.

In October 2017, Keng filed a complaint for cyber libel against Ressa and Santos with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which later referred the matter to the DoJ. Keng says prior to his filing the complaint, he requested Rappler to remove the report, but his request was ignored.

The DoJ filed the case against Ressa and Santos with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila and it was raffled off to Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa of Branch 46 who issued a warrant for their arrest.

On 13 February, law enforcers arrested Ressa at her Rappler office. Ressa was able to post bail after spending a night at the NBI office. Santos, who is no longer with Rappler, surrendered to the court two days later and posted bail as well. Bail was set at P100,000 each.

Ressa claims her arrest came as a surprise to her.

Further, Ressa’s lawyer says she cannot be charged with cyber libel because, at the time the report came out in May 2012, the Cyber Crime Prevention Act (CCPA), which penalizes cyber libel, was not yet in force. The lawyer said the law took effect only in September 2012 and that the Constitution prohibits the retroactive application of penal statutes.

Ressa’s lawyer likewise says the case was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period for libel cases under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). This means since the online report came out in May 2012, the case cannot be filed beyond May 2013. He also says that even if the reckoning is in May 2014 when corrections were made in the report, the case prescribed in May 2015.

In contrast, the DoJ says cyber libel is covered not by the RPC but by a special penal law, namely, the CCPA, which imposes a penalty one degree higher than that found in the RPC.

Under Republic Act 3326, which sets the prescriptive period for crimes not covered by the RPC, the prescriptive period corresponding to the penalty for cybercrime is 12 years. Thus, the DoJ argues that the case against Ressa and Santos is not barred by prescription.

From all indications, Ressa is making a mountain out of a molehill. The case against her is hardly any different from any cybercrime case any other journalist may possibly face. As a journalist, Ressa should have anticipated the possibility of being sued for cyber libel. Thus, even if she made sure that the report in question is not libelous, her compliance with legal niceties is not a guaranty that she will never be at the receiving end of a libel suit.

Instead of whining, Ressa is better off defending herself in court which is the proper forum where she can raise hell against her accusers.

As to the difference in legal opinion of the contesting parties, that matter is best left to the RTC and ultimately the SC to resolve. Arguing the legal merits of this complicated case at the public forum will create further polarization in what is already a divisive controversy.

The public statements Ressa and her lawyers have been making only tend to sensationalize the case. They also give the wrong impression to the public that members of the media are entitled to special treatment in that libel cases against media professionals are always unfounded and always constitute threats to press freedom.

It is difficult to believe Ressa’s story that her arrest came as a surprise to her. From the television news coverage of her arrest, it looks like the news media were already at the Rappler office waiting for the arresting officers to arrive. By getting herself arrested in her office in the presence of the media instead of simply surrendering to the court and posting bail, Ressa knew which choice can court public sympathy.

The constitutionality of the provisions of the RPC and the CCPA on libel has been upheld by the SC. Ressa has posted bail. She can continue her work in Rappler even during the pendency of the case. If the case against Ressa is truly unfounded as she alleges it to be, that case should not be pending too long. Should the case turn out to be truly unfounded, Ressa can turn the tables on her accusers.

Where then is the threat to press freedom here?