CA denies Maria Ressa’s motion for reconsideration in cyber libel case
MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) stood by its earlier decision affirming the Manila Regional Trial Court’s decision finding Nobel Laureate and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa as well as former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. guilty of cyber libel.
In a 16-page decision dated Oct. 10, the appellate court’s 4th Division said the motion for reconsideration filed by Ressa and Santos is “unmeritorious” for failure to present new arguments that would warrant a reversal of its earlier ruling.
“A careful and meticulous review of the motion for reconsideration reveals that the matter raised by the accused-appellants had already been exhaustively resolved and discussed in the Assailed Decision,” the CA said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Roberto Quiroz.
The case was about the cyber libel complaint filed by businessman Wilfredo Keng regarding an article written by Santos on the vehicle that he lent the late chief justice Renato Corona.
The article mentions an intelligence report saying that Keng is involved in smuggling and human trafficking. Keng has denied the allegations and presented clearances from law enforcement agencies.
In its latest ruling, the CA reiterated that Ressa’s argument that the provisions on cyber libel and its penalty were applied ex post facto were “unavailing.”
“In the same manner, the argument that the provisions on cyber libel and its penalty were applied ex post facto on the theory that the correction of one letter in the original article published on May 29, 2012 is too unsubstantial and cannot be considered as a republication committed on February 19, 2014, is unavailing,” the CA said.
It stressed that the determination of republication is not hinged on whether the corrections made were substantial or not, “as what matters is that the very exact libelous article was again published on a later date.”
“Such republication on February 19, 2014, is the act which accused-appellants were charged for, and was lawfully prosecuted when the provision on cyber libel was declared valid and constitutional by the Supreme Court through its decision in the Disini case dated February 11, 2014,” the CA said.
The CA also distinguished between a “traditional” article and an online article, which said that online articles “remain in perpetuity unless taken down from all online platforms.”
“Thus, applying to the present case, the defamatory article published against Wilfredo Keng is continuously published in the Rappler website despite the lapse of one year from the time of its republication and can still be readily consumed by anyone who has access to cyberspace,” the CA said.
At the same time, the CA assured the public that the conviction of Ressa and Santos is not geared towards the curtailment of the freedom of speech or to produce a chilling effect that would hinder free speech.
“On the contrary, we echo the wisdom of the SC in the Disini case that the purpose of the law is to safeguard the right of free speech and to curb, it not totally prevent, the reckless and unlawful use of the computer systems as a means of committing the traditional criminal offenses,” the appellate court added.
The decision was concurred by Associate Justices Ramon Bato Jr. and Germano Francisco Legaspi.
RELATED STORIES
Ressa’s counsel Amal Clooney urges SC, Marcos gov’t to defend free press
