You are on page 1of 2

Is Maria Ressa liable for

libel?
By: Artemio V. Panganiban - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:08 AM February 24, 2019

To set the record straight at the outset, Maria Ressa was indicted by the Department of
Justice (DOJ) for the “republication” by Rappler of an allegedly libelous online article
on Feb. 19, 2014, not for its original posting on May 29, 2012.

In fact, the DOJ’s Resolution, dated Jan. 10, 2019, exonerated Ressa from libel arising
from the original posting. In unmistakable language, it ruled that the “first publication
of the article on 29 May 2012 is not covered by the Cybercrime Act of 2012,
considering that the law was promulgated only in September 2012…”
ADVERTISEMENT

However, the DOJ charged her (and article writer Reynaldo Santos Jr.) only “with
respect to the 19 February 2014 publication,” holding that “[u]nder the ‘multiple
publication rule,’ a single defamatory statement, if published several times, gives rise to
as many offenses as there are publications.”

To buttress its ruling, it cited Soriano vs IAC (Nov. 9, 1988) which decreed, “We
follow the ‘multiple publication rule’ in the Philippines… every time the same written
matter is communicated such communication is considered a distinct and separate
publication of the libel.”

Moreover, the DOJ added that “the offense charged has not prescribed. Under RA
10175 (Cybercrime Act of 2012), if libel is committed by, through and with the use of
information and communications technologies, the nature of the crime changes… to
cyber libel” which, it said, prescribes in 12 years.

Clearly then, Ressa was not charged with ordinary libel under the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) which prescribes in one year. Therefore, in my humble view, her defense of
prescription is wobbly since, to repeat, she was indicted under the Cybercrime Law, not
under the RPC.

Neither is her defense of ex post facto law viable, because she was charged with a
“republication” that happened when the Cybercrime Law was already in effect. She was
not accused of ordinary libel that happened in 2012, which the DOJ itself conceded had
already prescribed.

Simply stated, an ex post facto law punishes an act done on an earlier date when it was
not punishable. Example: A pedestrian crossed a street on Jan. 1, 2019. A month later, a
new law was passed punishing that very act of jaywalking on Jan. 1. This would be an
ex post facto law that the Constitution expressly prohibits.

Because the DOJ did not invoke an ex post facto application of the Cybercrime Law,
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra insisted he broke no law in filing the criminal
charge and dared Ressa to sue him if she thought he violated her rights.

Nonetheless, I think Ressa has viable defenses in her favor. For example, she can argue
that no libel, whether ordinary or cyber, was committed. She can show that the Rappler
article was “privileged” in the sense that it was “a fair commentary on a matter of
public interest.”

Borjal vs CA (Jan. 14, 1999) and similar cases held that “honest criticisms on the
conduct of public officials and public figures are insulated from libel judgments.” And
“public figure” refers to “anyone who has arrived at a position where the public
attention is focused upon him as a person.” Of course, Ressa has to prove that
complainant Wilfredo Keng, a private individual, has attained the level of a “public
figure.”

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/119761/is-maria-ressa-liable-for-


libel#ixzz5gWesc8Oy
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

You might also like