View source for People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler

{{short description|Philippine criminal case}}
{{italic title}}
{{Use Philippine English|date=June 2020}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2020}}<!-- If an appeal is ruled on, add a new infobox, don't delete this one. If an appeal is pending, simply add it to "subsequent actions" until ruled on. -->
{{Infobox Philippines court case
|name               = People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler
|branch             = 46
|RTCcity            = [[Manila]]
|full name          = People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Santos, Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa and Rappler, Inc.
|date decided       = {{Start date|2020|06|15}}
|citations          = R-MNL-19-01141-CR
|transcripts        = 
|decision by        = Rainelda Estacio-Montesa
|number of judges   = 1
|prior actions      = ''{{abbr|NBI and Keng v. Santos et al.|National Bureau of Investigation and Wilfredo D. Keng v. Reynaldo Santos, Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa, Manuel I. Ayala, Nico Jose Nolledo, Glenda M. Gloria, James Bitanga, Felicia Atienza, Dan Albert de Padua, and Jose Maria G. Hofileña}}'' (XVI-INV-18C-00049)<ref name="DOJResolution"/>
|appealed from      =
|appealed to        =
|subsequent actions = 
|related actions    = {{Rappler cases|infobox=no}}
|keywords           = <!-- {{flatlist|}} -->
|italic title       =
|laws_applied       = [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012]]<br />{{ws|[[:s:Constitution of the Philippines (1987)|Constitution of the Philippines (1987)]]}}—Article III Section 4
|Ruling=Maria Ressa was found guilty of cyberlibel, and the Court found that a guilty verdict in her case would not unduly harm the right to free expression in the Philippines.}}
'''''People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler''''' (R-MNL-19-01141-CR), also known as the '''Maria Ressa cyberlibel case''', is a high-profile criminal case in the [[Philippines]], lodged against [[Maria Ressa]], co-owner and CEO of [[Rappler|Rappler Inc.]].<ref name=":7" /> Accused of [[cyberlibel]], Ressa was found guilty by a Manila [[Regional Trial Court]] on June 15, 2020.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news|last=Ratcliffe|first=Rebecca|date=June 15, 2020|title=Journalist Maria Ressa found guilty of 'cyberlibel' in Philippines|language=en-GB|work=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/15/maria-ressa-rappler-editor-found-guilty-of-cyber-libel-charges-in-philippines|access-date=June 15, 2020|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web|last=Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa|date=June 15, 2020|title=People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Santos Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa and Rappler Inc.|url=https://abogado.com.ph/read-the-37-page-decision-of-manila-rtc-on-maria-ressa-cyberlibel-case/|access-date=June 15, 2020|publisher=Manila Regional Trial Court|language=en-US|via=Abogado.com.ph}}</ref>{{Rp|36}} 

The case centered on an article published on ''[[Rappler]]'' by Reynaldo Santos Jr. which accused the former [[Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines]] of accepting favors from [[Filipino-Chinese]] businessman Wilfredo Keng.<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last1=Santos Jr. |first1=Reynaldo |last2=Rufo |first2=Aries |date=May 29, 2012 |title=CJ using SUVs of 'controversial' businessmen |language=en |work=Rappler |url=https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/6061-cj-using-suvs-of-controversial-businessmen/ |access-date=December 8, 2023}}</ref> Santos, Ressa, and others were charged with cyberlibel [[ex post facto law|retrospectively]], as the article was originally published four months before the [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012|Cybercrime Prevention Act]] came into effect.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|last=Orendain|first=Simone|date=October 3, 2012|title=Cybercrime Law in Philippines Draws Protests|url=https://www.voanews.com/east-asia/cybercrime-law-philippines-draws-protests|access-date=June 18, 2020|publisher=[[Voice of America]]|language=en}}</ref><ref name="Buan">{{Cite news|last=Buan|first=Lian|date=January 19, 2018|title=NBI: Rappler can be liable for cyber libel despite non-retroactive law|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/194036-nbi-rappler-cyber-libel-retroactive|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref> Rappler Inc., as a corporation, was not found [[Corporate liability|liable]]; Santos, however, as author, was. Ressa, in her capacity of Rappler's [[chief executive officer]], was also found liable.<ref name=":1" /> By the time Santos was charged, he was no longer working as a journalist for ''Rappler''.<ref name=":8">{{Cite news|last=Buan|first=Lian|date=June 18, 2020|title='I'm scared to go to jail, I'm not as fearless as Maria', says Reynaldo Santos Jr|url=http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/264125-profile-reynaldo-santos-jr|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref>

The court ruled that Ressa "did not offer a scintilla of proof that they verified the imputations of various crimes in the disputed article{{Nbsp}}... [Rappler] just simply published them as news in their online publication in reckless disregard of whether they are false or not."<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|34}} The judgement also argued that Ressa had deliberately called herself an executive editor, rather than the [[editor-in-chief]], in an attempt to avoid liability.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|25}} Ressa, along with Santos Jr., appealed to the  [[Court of Appeals of the Philippines|Court of Appeals]] after the conviction.<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|last=Buan|first=Lian|date=June 15, 2020|title=Maria Ressa, Rey Santos Jr convicted of cyber libel|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/263790-maria-ressa-reynaldo-santos-jr-convicted-cyber-libel-case-june-15-2020|access-date=June 15, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref> However, the court upheld the decision, noting that the article is "defamatory or libelous per se";<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2022/07/12/2194857/rejecting-ressa-appeal-ca-says-cyber-libel-can-be-filed-over-15-year-old-posts/amp/|last=Patag|first=Kristine Joy|title=In rejecting Ressa appeal, CA says cyber libel can be filed over 15-year-old posts|date=July 12, 2022|access-date=August 24, 2022|website=[[Philstar]]}}</ref> a [[motion for reconsideration]] was denied by the appellate court, prompting Ressa to elevate the case to the [[Supreme Court of the Philippines|Supreme Court]] for a [[Certiorari|judicial review]]. 

The ruling was criticized by several human rights groups and international organizations,<ref name="WaPo">{{Cite news|last=Cabato|first=Regine|date=June 15, 2020|title=Conviction of Maria Ressa, hard-hitting Philippine American journalist, sparks condemnation|language=en|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/maria-ressa-rappler-filipino-american-journalist-guilty-cyber-libel-prison/2020/06/14/0dc58872-ae9c-11ea-98b5-279a6479a1e4_story.html|access-date=June 16, 2020}}</ref><ref name=":16" /><ref name=":15" /><ref>{{Cite news|last=Editorial Board|date=June 15, 2020|title=The Philippines slides toward autocracy|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-philippines-slides-toward-autocracy/2020/06/15/a668d424-af25-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html|access-date=June 19, 2020|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|language=en}}</ref> with the [[United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights]] describing the case as part of a "pattern of [[intimidation]]" against the [[Philippine press]].<ref name=":2" />

== Background ==
[[File:Maria Ressa.jpg|thumb|Maria Ressa was one of those found guilty of cyberlibel as a result of ''People v. Santos, et al.'']]

The [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012]] ([[Republic Act|R.A.]] 10175) was signed into law by President [[Benigno Aquino III]] on September 12, 2012, becoming effective on October 3.<ref name=":4"/> Among the actions criminalized by this law is "[[cyberlibel]]".<ref name=":4" /> Six days after the law commenced, the [[Supreme Court of the Philippines|Supreme Court]] issued a [[temporary restraining order]] to stop its implementation.<ref name=gma1>{{cite news|title=SC extends TRO on cybercrime law|url=http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/293478/news/nation/sc-extends-tro-on-cybercrime-law|access-date=5 February 2013|work=GMA News|date=5 February 2013}}</ref><ref name=sunstar1>{{cite news|title=SC won't lift TRO on cybercrime law|url=http://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2013/02/05/sc-wont-lift-tro-cybercrime-law-266578|access-date=5 February 2013|work=Sunstar|date=5 February 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130212060936/http://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2013/02/05/sc-wont-lift-tro-cybercrime-law-266578|archive-date=February 12, 2013}}</ref> On February 18, 2014, the Court declared that the law is [[1987 Philippine Constitution|constitutional]], upholding most of its provisions including cyberlibel.<ref name="gmanetwork.com">{{cite news|last1=Merueñas|first1=Mark|title=Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional – SC|url=http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/348945/scitech/technology/internet-libel-in-cybercrime-law-constitutional-sc|access-date=20 May 2016|work=GMA News|date=18 February 2014}}</ref>

''[[Rappler]]'' is a Filipino news website that was co-founded in 2012 by journalist [[Maria Ressa]]. She served as the site's [[CEO]] and executive editor since its founding. On May 29, 2012, ''Rappler'' researcher and writer Reynaldo Santos Jr. published an article titled "[[Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines|CJ]] using [[SUVs]] of 'controversial' businessmen".<ref name=":3"/> Among those named in the article is businessman Wilfredo Keng. The article details Keng's involvement in a controversy surrounding Chief Justice [[Renato Corona]], who was later [[Impeachment of Renato Corona|impeached]]. {{As of|December 2023}}, the article remains online.<ref name=":3" />

Santos Jr.'s article primarily relied on a 2002 ''[[Philippine Star]]'' article as a source,<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Alquitran|first1=Non|last2=Ocampo|first2=Junep|date=August 12, 2002|title=Influential businessman eyed in ex-councilor's slay|url=https://www.philstar.com/metro/2002/08/12/171715/influential-businessman-eyed-ex-councilor146s-slay|archive-url=https://archive.today/20190215095946/https://www.philstar.com/metro/2002/08/12/171715/influential-businessman-eyed-ex-councilor146s-slay|archive-date=February 15, 2019|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=The Philippine Star|via=Google web cache via [[Archive.is]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Rey|first=Aika|date=February 17, 2019|title=PhilStar.com takes down 2002 article on Wilfredo Keng|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/223662-philippine-star-2002-article-wilfredo-keng-legal-action-threat|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref> as well as on an "intelligence report" prepared that same year by the [[National Security Council (Philippines)|National Security Council]], which the article says implicated Keng in [[Human trafficking in the Philippines|human trafficking]] and [[Illegal drug trade in the Philippines|drug smuggling]].<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":9" /> This report, however, was not presented to the Court as evidence.<ref name=":0" /> On February 16, 2019, ''Philippine Star'' took down the aforementioned article after Keng threatened legal action.<ref>{{Cite news|date=February 16, 2019|title=Philstar.com's statement on the 2002 article on Wilfredo Keng|url=https://www.philstar.com/metro/2002/08/12/171715/influential-businessman-eyed-ex-councilor146s-slay|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=The Philippine Star}}</ref>

On December 20, 2017, Keng filed a complaint-affidavit before the [[National Bureau of Investigation (Philippines)|National Bureau of Investigation]] (NBI) to charge Santos, Jr. and Ressa, along with ''Rappler''<nowiki/>'s treasurer James Bitanga and six others, with cyberlibel.<ref name=":6">{{Cite news|last=Buan|first=Lian|date=February 22, 2018|title=NBI junks cyber libel complaint vs Rappler|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/196648-nbi-junks-cyber-libel-complaint-rappler|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Keng|first=Wilfredo|date=December 20, 2017|title=Affidavit-complaint|url=https://www.scribd.com/document/369707902/Wilfredo-Keng-s-complaint-vs-Rappler|access-date=June 18, 2020|location=Makati|language=en|via=[[Scribd]]}}</ref> The NBI's Cybercrime Department argued that because of a legal gray area regarding the theory of "continuous publication",<ref group="note">The theory is based on the idea that, as long as the article is online, the server (in this case, ''Rappler'') was "publishing" it again whenever it was accessed by someone, akin to [[print-on-demand]] for printed works.</ref> it can be assumed that Keng saw the article in question after the passing of the law.<ref name="Buan"/> However, the NBI ultimately decided not to charge ''Rappler''.<ref name=":6" /> The [[Department of Justice (Philippines)|Department of Justice]] (DOJ) later took up the case and recommended the charges be filed. The DOJ reasoned that on February 19, 2014, the article was changed to correct a misspelling of the word "evasion",<ref group="note">The misspelling is ''evation''.</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Navallo|first=Mike|date=June 14, 2020|title=How correcting a typo got Maria into trouble: The cyberlibel case vs Rappler|url=https://news.abs-cbn.com/spotlight/06/14/20/how-correcting-a-typo-got-maria-into-trouble-the-cyberlibel-case-vs-rappler|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=ABS-CBN News|language=en}}</ref> which can be considered as re-publication according to the department.<ref name=":7">{{Cite news|date=February 4, 2019|title=Despite NBI flip-flop, DOJ to indict Rappler for cyber libel|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/222691-doj-to-indict-rappler-cyber-libel-despite-nbi-flip-flop|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref>

Another issue that the DOJ opined on was the [[prescriptive period]]. In Philippine law, a regular [[libel]] has a prescriptive period of one year, but the cybercrime law does not define such period for cyberlibel. Therefore, the DOJ reasoned that it must be twelve years, according to an [[American colonial period in the Philippines|American-era]] law that is still in effect today.<ref name=":7" /><ref>{{Cite news|last=Robles|first=Raissa|date=February 16, 2019|title=OPINION: DOJ uses wrong law to justify charging Maria Ressa with cyber libel beyond 1-year prescriptive period|url=https://news.abs-cbn.com/blogs/opinions/02/16/19/opinion-doj-uses-wrong-law-to-justify-charging-maria-ressa-with-cyber-libel-beyond-1-year-prescriptive-period|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=ABS-CBN News|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite act|type=Act|index=3326|date=December 4, 1926|article=1.d|article-type=Section|legislature=[[Philippine Legislature]]|title=An act to establish periods of prescription for violations penalized by special acts and municipal ordinances and to provide when prescription shall begin to run|url=http://lawyerly.ph/laws/view/l40e8}}</ref> While there was a temporary restraining order against implementation of the cybercrime law, the 2014 ruling by the Supreme Court made the law go into effect as scheduled on October 3, 2012.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Roque |first=H. Harry L. Jr. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HEsbDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA127 |title=Media Law and Policy in the Internet Age |date=2017-02-23 |publisher=Hart Publishing |isbn=978-1-78225-738-7 |editor-last=Weisenhaus |editor-first=Doreen |pages=127–140 |language=en |chapter=Chapter 9. The Philippine Supreme Court on Cyber Libel: Lost in Overbreadth |doi=10.5040/9781782257417.ch-009 |editor-last2=Young |editor-first2=Simon N. M. |chapter-url=https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/media-law-and-policy-in-the-internet-age/ch9-the-philippine-supreme-court-on-cyber-libel-lost-in-overbreadth |url-access=limited}}</ref><ref name="DOJResolution">{{Cite court|litigants={{abbr|NBI and Keng v. Rappler Inc., et al.|National Bureau of Investigation and Wilfredo D. Keng v. Reynaldo Santos, Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa, Manuel I. Ayala, Nico Jose Nolledo, Glenda M. Gloria, James Bitanga, Felicia Atienza, Dan Albert de Padua, and Jose Maria G. Hofileña}}|court=[[Philippine Department of Justice]]|pinpoint=XVI-INV-18C-00049|date=February 4, 2019|url=https://www.scribd.com/document/401581594/DOJ-Resolution-pdf}} {{P.|7}}</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite web |title=People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/people-of-the-philippines-v-santos-ressa-and-rappler/ |access-date=2022-08-17 |website=Global Freedom of Expression |publisher=[[Columbia University]] |language=en}}</ref> The DOJ later dropped Bitanga and six others from the complaint, as their "part in the publication [had not been] established".<ref>{{Cite news|last=Pulta|first=Benjamin|date=February 6, 2019|title=DOJ approves cyber libel raps vs. Rappler|url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1061070|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=[[Philippine News Agency]]|language=en}}</ref>

Ressa was arrested on the night of February 13, 2019; she spent the night in jail before being released on bail the next morning. She alleged that she was purposely arrested at night so that she could not bail herself out in a timely manner.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Reilly|first=Katie|date=February 21, 2019|title=The Message Behind Maria Ressa's Cyber Libel Arrest|url=https://time.com/5534382/maria-ressa-cyber-libel-arrest/|access-date=June 18, 2020|magazine=Time}}</ref> As of March 2019, she has paid more than {{Currency|2 million|PHP|passthrough=yes}} in bail and travel [[Bail bond|bonds]], the latter of which Ressa's camp labeled as "excessive".<ref>{{Cite news|last=Navallo|first=Mike|title=Ressa camp protests 'excessive' travel bond|url=https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/14/19/ressa-camp-protests-excessive-travel-bond|access-date=June 19, 2020|work=ABS-CBN News|language=en}}</ref> She could potentially serve around 100 years in prison if she was to be found guilty on all cases.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Moran|first=Padraig|date=June 18, 2020|title=Facing possible jail time totalling 100 years, journalist Maria Ressa says she won't stop fighting for justice|publisher=[[CBC News]]|url=https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-18-1.5616058/facing-possible-jail-time-totalling-100-years-journalist-maria-ressa-says-she-won-t-stop-fighting-for-justice-1.5617289|access-date=June 18, 2020}}</ref>

Aside from ''People v. Santos, et al.'', ''Rappler'' also faced a number of lawsuits filed by various government agencies, including on the [[Rappler#2018 ownership controversy and revocation of certificate of incorporation|irregularities on its ownership]] as well as allegations of tax evasion.<ref>{{cite news|date=January 15, 2018|title=Rappler's incorporation papers revoked by SEC|work=ABS-CBN News|url=http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/15/18/rapplers-incorporation-papers-revoked-by-sec|access-date=January 17, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|date=April 17, 2018|title=Subpoenas sent to Rappler's Ressa, Bitanga for tax raps|language=en|work=ABS-CBN News|url=http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/04/17/18/subpoenas-sent-to-rapplers-ressa-bitanga-for-tax-raps|access-date=April 18, 2018}}</ref> Ressa on multiple occasions had connected President [[Rodrigo Duterte]] to the legal cases filed the [[Executive branch of the Philippines|executive branch]] against ''Rappler''.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Rita|first=Joviland|date=June 16, 2020|title=Maria Ressa contradicts Roque claim that Duterte values press freedom|url=https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/742861/maria-ressa-contradicts-roque-claim-that-duterte-values-press-freedom/story/|access-date=June 19, 2020|work=[[GMA News Online]]|language=en-US|quote=After the SONA in July 2017, Ressa said the first subpoena was issued against them. 'Within a few months in January 2018, we received a shutdown order, a revocation of our permit or license to operate.'{{nbsp}}}}</ref><ref>{{Cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNHDq_xVJGI&t=648|title=Forum on the cyber libel verdict against Maria Ressa, Rappler|date=June 14, 2020|last=Diokno|first=Chel|type=YouTube [[live stream]]|publisher=[[Rappler]]|author-link=Chel Diokno|time=10:49|quote=We fast forward to three years later, July 2017, the president now is Duterte, he issues a [[State of the Nation Address (Philippines)|State of the Nation Address]] where he mentions ''Rappler'' and says that ''Rappler'' is fully owned by Americans. Soon after that, a week later, ''Rappler'' received its first [[subpoena]], and then that became a barrage of cases.}}</ref>

== Trial ==
Ressa and Santos Jr. were arraigned on May 13, 2019.<ref name=":11">{{Cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVk2BmFBSME|title=Maria Ressa arraigned for cyber libel; SC may be next option|date=May 13, 2019|last=Te|first=Theodore|type=YouTube video|publisher=[[Rappler]]|time=0:00|access-date=June 18, 2020|quote=Te (Ressa's attorney): Ah, yes, the arraignment was conducted this morning and the information was read to the accused and both the accused did not enter a plea, so based on the Rules of Court, the judge entered a plea of not guilty for both of the accused.|last2=Ressa|first2=Maria}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=August 2022}} Their trial began on July 23, 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Ellis-Petersen|first=Hannah|date=July 23, 2019|title=Philippines libel trial of journalist critical of Rodrigo Duterte begins|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/23/philippines-libel-trial-of-maria-ressa-journalist-critical-of-president-duterte-begins|access-date=June 18, 2020|website=[[The Guardian]]|language=en}}</ref> They were represented by lawyers Theodore Te<ref name=":11" /> and J.J. Disini of the [[Free Legal Assistance Group|FLAG]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Griffiths|first=James|date=June 15, 2020|title=Philippines journalist Maria Ressa found guilty of 'cyber libel' in latest blow to free press|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/asia/maria-ressa-philippines-cyber-libel-intl-hnk/index.html|access-date=June 19, 2020|website=[[CNN Business]]}}</ref>

In the lead-up to the trial, the defendants' lawyers tried several times to achieve dismissal via [[Motion to quash|motions to quash]] in February 2019,<ref name=":12">{{Cite news|last=Fernandez|first=Ria|date=April 15, 2019|title=Manila judge rejects Maria Ressa's motion to dismiss cyberlibel case|url=https://news.mb.com.ph/2019/04/15/manila-judge-rejects-maria-ressas-motion-to-dismiss-cyberlibel-case|access-date=June 19, 2020|work=Manila Bulletin|language=en-US}}</ref> [[Motion to dismiss|motions to dismiss]] in April 2019,<ref name=":12" /> and [[demurrers]] in November 2019.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Requejo|first=Rey E.|date=November 20, 2019|title=Court to hear cyberlibel case vs. Ressa, reporter|language=en|work=Manila Standard|url=https://manilastandard.net/news/national/310590/court-to-hear-cyberlibel-case-vs-ressa-reporter.html|access-date=June 19, 2020}}</ref> All such motions were denied by the Court.<ref>{{Cite web|date=December 4, 2019|title=Court to resume cyberlibel hearing vs Maria Ressa|url=https://abogado.com.ph/court-to-resume-cyberlibel-hearing-vs-maria-ressa/|access-date=June 19, 2020|website=Abogado|language=en-US}}</ref>

The verdict was originally scheduled for April 3, 2020, but it was delayed due to the [[COVID-19 pandemic]].<ref>{{Cite news|date=June 15, 2020|title=Forum on the cyber libel verdict against Maria Ressa, Rappler|url=http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/263639-online-forum-consortium-democracy-disinformation-cyber-libel-verdict-maria-ressa-2020|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref> On the advice of counsel, neither Ressa nor Santos Jr. testified in their own defense.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Pulta|first=Benjamin|date=June 15, 2020|title=Manila court convicts Rappler CEO, writer on cyber libel|url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1105895|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=[[Philippine News Agency]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Nicole-Anne C. Lagrimas|date=June 15, 2020|title=Court convicts Maria Ressa, ex-Rappler researcher of cyber libel|url=https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/742625/court-convicts-maria-ressa-ex-researcher-of-cyber-libel/story/|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=[[GMA News Online]]|language=en-US|quote=[N]either Ressa nor Santos took the witness stand.}}</ref>

=== Verdict ===
After a trial that lasted for eight months,<ref>{{Cite news|last=Buan|first=Lian|date=June 2, 2020|title=Verdict on Rappler, Maria Ressa cyber libel case out June 15|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/262545-verdict-rappler-maria-ressa-cyber-libel-case-out-june-15-2020|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref> Ressa and Santos Jr. were both found guilty of cyberlibel by Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa of the Manila [[Regional Trial Court]] [[Regional Trial Court#Branches|Branch 46]].<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0" />{{Rp|36}} The verdict was handed down on June 15, 2020.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0" />{{Rp|36}} Although [[corporate liability]] against Rappler Inc. had been sought, the judge ruled that there was no corporate liability in this case.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|28&ndash;29}}<ref name=":1" /> They were both sentenced to between six months and six years in prison,<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|36}} but are entitled to bail while they have appeals pending in higher courts.<ref name=":1" /> They were also both assessed fines of {{Currency|400000|PHP|passthrough=|linked=no}} for combined "moral damages" and "exemplary damages".<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|36}}

In its ruling, the Court said that Ressa "did not offer a [[wikt:scintilla#English|scintilla]] of proof that they verified the imputations of various crimes in the disputed article. [...] They just simply published them as news in their online publication in reckless disregard of whether they are false or not";<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|34}} it also said that Ressa committed a "clever ruse" by not calling herself an [[editor-in-chief]], but rather an executive editor, to avoid libel liability;<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|25}}  this was criticized by several media outlets, as the position is common.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Nery|first=John|date=June 16, 2020|title=A nauseous verdict, an ignorant judge|url=https://opinion.inquirer.net/130836/a-nauseous-verdict-an-ignorant-judge|access-date=June 19, 2020|newspaper=Philippine Daily Inquirer|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=June 16, 2020|title=Statement: Network condemns guilty verdict in cyber-libel case, says reasoning is based on falsehood, ignorance|url=https://fightdisinfo.com/2020/06/16/network-condemns-guilty-verdict/|access-date=June 19, 2020|website=Consortium on Democracy and Disinformation|language=en|quote=This "nomenclature" may be new to her, but it is not limited to Rappler and, it is, in fact so commonplace that to declare it "a clever ruse" to avoid liability shows Judge Estacio-Montesa's apparent unfamiliarity with the terrain that is journalism.}}</ref>

The Court also drew an [[adverse inference]] from Ressa and Santos Jr.'s refusal to [[Testify#Law|testify]], relying on ''People v. Resano'' ([https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1984/oct1984/gr_l57738_1984.html {{Abbr|G.R.|General Register}} No. L-57738]) as [[precedent]], which states that defendants "owe it to themselves" to testify if they are "in the best position to refute [the] charges" as there may be no other way to affect "the complete destruction of the prosecution's ''[[prima facie]]'' case".<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|27}}<ref>{{Cite web|date=June 15, 2020|title=Wrong move? Judge Montesa surprised why Ressa, co-accused didn't take the stand|url=https://abogado.com.ph/wrong-move-judge-montesa-surprised-why-ressa-co-accused-didnt-take-the-stand/|access-date=June 18, 2020|website=Abogado|language=en-US}}</ref>

The ruling was handed down in person, despite the ongoing [[COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines|COVID-19 pandemic]] and [[general community quarantine]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bengali|first=Shashank|date=June 15, 2020|title=Philippine American journalist Maria Ressa convicted in cybercrime case|url=https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-06-14/philippine-american-journalist-maria-ressa-convicted-in-cybercrime-case|access-date=June 18, 2020|website=[[Los Angeles Times]]|language=en-US}}</ref> Judge Estacio-Montesa ordered her [[clerk of court|clerk]] to first read out her ''[[wikt:fallo#English|fallo]]'', which read in part, "there is no curtailment of the right to [[freedom of speech]] and of the press", before the Court's ruling.<ref>{{Cite web|date=June 16, 2020|title=Libel in the court|url=https://medium.com/up-scientia/libel-in-the-court-b64ad2bb24eb|access-date=June 18, 2020|website=Scientia|publisher=[[University of the Philippines Diliman]] College of Science|language=en|via=[[Medium (website)|Medium]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Buan|first=Lian|date=June 15, 2020|title=What Maria Ressa conviction means for reporting confidential sources|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/263832-what-rappler-conviction-means-for-reporting-confidential-sources|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref>

== Appeal ==
Ressa [[appeal]]ed the guilty verdict both on her own behalf and of Santos Jr.,<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /> who Rappler Inc. is covering the legal costs of.<ref name=":8" /> When the [[Court of Appeals of the Philippines|Court of Appeals]] upheld the verdict, she filed a [[motion for reconsideration]] arguing that the appellate court "erred in holding that the offense of cyberlibel against appellants has not prescribed and that the [[Statute of limitations#Philippines|period of prescription]] should be 15 years and not one year," considering that the [[Revised Penal Code]] already provides a one-year prescriptive period for "libel and other offenses".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Patag |first1=Kristine Joy |title=In appeal, Ressa and Santos question prescriptive period for cyber libel |url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2022/07/26/2198107/appeal-ressa-and-santos-question-prescriptive-period-cyber-libel |website=[[The Philippine Star|Philstar.com]] |date=July 26, 2022 |access-date=August 16, 2022}}</ref> In an October 2022 decision, the court denied the motion due to a lack of merit, affirming the conviction and increasing the potential prison sentence accompanying it. Ressa has appealed by ''[[certiorari]]'' to the [[Supreme Court of the Philippines|Supreme Court]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Patag |first1=Kristine Joy |title=Appeals court junks Ressa cyber libel appeal; Supreme Court next |url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2022/10/11/2215882/appeals-court-junks-ressa-cyber-libel-appeal-supreme-court-next |website=Philstar.com |date=10 October 2022 |access-date=11 October 2022}}</ref>
=== "Amicus curiae"-Intervention ===
The [[Supreme Court of the Philippines]] First Division's resolution dated January 24, 2024, granted [[Irene Khan]]'s [[Leave (legal)|Motion for Leave]] to [[Intervention (law)|Intervene]], to sit as an "[[amicus curiae]]" or chosen [[Expert witness|Expert]] and it also admitted and noted her [[Brief (law)|amicus brief]] submitted through Atty. Rodel Taton. "The law in the country fails to adequately protect the right to freedom of expression, citing Article 19 of the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] to which the Philippines is a member. The country's [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012|Ant-Cybercrime Law]] raises serious concerns that it limits the ability of journalists to expose, document and address issues of important public interest, thereby violating the right to receive and impart information," Khan's brief alleged. The [[International Bar Association]]'s Human Rights Institute was also permitted to submit its [[legal opinion]] “by way of special appearance” through Atty. Maria Cristina Yambot, in Ressa and Reynaldo Santos' case.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Laqui  |first1= Ian |title=SC allows UN expert to act as 'friend of the court' in Maria Ressa's cyber libel plea|url= https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/03/25/2343234/sc-allows-un-expert-act-friend-court-maria-ressas-cyber-libel-plea|accessdate=March 25, 2024 |publisher=[[The Philippine Star]] |date=March 25, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Torres-Tupas |first1=Tetch |title=UN rapporteur allowed as 'friend of court' in Ressa's cyber libel case |url= https://globalnation.inquirer.net/229425/un-rapporteur-allowed-to-act-as-friend-of-the-court-in-maria-ressa-case|accessdate=March 25, 2024 |publisher=[[Philippine Daily Inquirer]] |date=March 25, 2024}}</ref>

== ''People of the Philippines v. Ressa'' ==
After the verdict, Keng sued Ressa again for cyberlibel, this time over a [[Twitter|tweet]] she wrote on February 15, 2019, which contained a [[screenshot]] of the 2002 ''Philippine Star'' article discussed in the 2012 ''Rappler'' article.<ref name=":19">{{Cite web |last=Lagrimas |first=Nicole-Anne C. |date=2020-12-03 |title=Maria Ressa charged with cyber libel for 2nd time |url=https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/766636/maria-ressa-charged-with-cyber-libel-for-2nd-time/story/ |access-date=2022-06-01 |website=GMA News Online |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Buan |first=Lian |date=June 19, 2020 |title=Keng sues Ressa for cyber libel anew over a 2019 tweet |url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/264257-keng-sues-ressa-cyber-libel-anew-tweet-2019 |access-date=June 21, 2020 |website=Rappler |language=en}}</ref> Keng stated that by republishing the article, "[Ressa] [[Felony|feloniously]] communicated the malicious imputations against me not only to her 350,000 Twitter followers, but to anyone who has access to the internet."<ref name=":18">{{Cite web |date=June 19, 2020 |title=Maria Ressa faces another cyber libel suit by same businessman over 2019 tweet |url=https://www.cnn.ph/news/2020/6/19/maria-ressa-cyber-libel-wilfredo-keng.html |access-date=June 21, 2020 |website=[[CNN Philippines]] |language=en}}</ref>

This second case, directed only against Ressa, was filed on November 23, 2020 at Makati RTC Branch 147.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Santos |first=Elmor |date=2020-12-03 |title=Maria Ressa again charged with cyber libel, seeks case dismissal |work=[[CNN Philippines]] |url=https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/12/3/Maria-Ressa-second-cyber-libel-case.html |access-date=2020-05-31 |archive-date=June 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220601034010/https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/12/3/Maria-Ressa-second-cyber-libel-case.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> The case was withdrawn by Keng on June 1, 2021, to "dedicate time and resources to support [[COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines|ongoing efforts]] to battle the [[COVID-19 pandemic|pandemic]]".<ref name=":21">{{Cite web |last=Virgin |first=Lopez |date=2021-06-01 |title=Wilfredo Keng withdraws 2nd cyber libel case vs. Maria Ressa |url=https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/789796/wilfredo-keng-withdraws-2nd-cyber-libel-case-vs-maria-ressa/story/ |access-date=2022-06-01 |website=GMA News Online |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-06-03 |title=Businessman's withdrawal of cyber libel case vs Maria Ressa welcomed—lawyer |url=https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/06/03/latest-stories/businessmans-withdrawal-of-cyber-libelcase-vs-maria-ressa-welcomed-lawyer/1801797 |access-date=2022-06-01 |website=[[The Manila Times]] |language=en}}</ref> Although Keng did not request a criminal dismissal, judge Andres Soriano still dismissed the case, reasoning that "the public prosecutor manifested that with the private complainant turning hostile to the cause of the prosecution, the prosecution can no longer prove the guilt of the accused [[Reasonable doubt|beyond reasonable doubt]]."<ref name=":21" />

This case does not affect the original guilty verdict under appeal.<ref name=":20">{{Cite web |last=Scott |first=Liam |date=2021-06-03 |title=Libel Case Dismissed, But Philippines Journalist Still Faces Legal Challenges |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/press-freedom_libel-case-dismissed-philippines-journalist-still-faces-legal-challenges/6206578.html |access-date=2022-06-01 |website=[[Voice of America]] |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":21" />

== Reactions ==
Reaction to the case was mixed. Before the verdict in April 2020, the annual [[Press Freedom Index]] report by [[Reporters Without Borders]] ranked the Philippines 136 out of 180 countries in terms of [[press freedom]].<ref name=":10">{{Cite web|date=April 20, 2020|title=Philippines: Holding the line against Duterte's attacks|url=https://rsf.org/en/philippines|access-date=June 19, 2020|website=[[Reporters Without Borders]]|language=en}}</ref> Historically, since the end of [[martial law under Ferdinand Marcos]], the Philippines was regarded as having one of the most [[freedom of the press|free presses]] in Asia.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Johnson|first=Howard|date=January 17, 2018|title=Why Rappler is raising Philippine press freedom fears|language=en-GB|work=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42713897|access-date=June 19, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Melinda Quintos de Jesus|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nRC5AAAAIAAJ|title=Press Freedom in the Philippines: A Study in Contradictions|last2=Luis V. Teodoro|publisher=[[Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility]]|year=2004|isbn=978-971-91955-6-6|page=7|language=en|quote=[T]he courts have established a record of decisions liberally interpreting the law in favor of the press. [...] Nowhere in Southeast Asia are government officials so accessible to the press. Cabinet ministers are available from the earliest hours to answer questions from radio show hosts on the news of the day involving their responsibilities.|display-authors=1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Doronila|first1=Amando|url=https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p266811/pdf/book.pdf|title=Losing control: freedom of the press in Asia|last2=Coronel|first2=Sheila S.|date=January 10, 2014|publisher=[[Australian National University]]|isbn=978-1-925021-44-8|location=Canberra|pages=xii, 148|oclc=862728315|quote=(Doronila) [T]he press in the Philippines is probably the most unfettered in the region and replicates the western models of a free press[.] (Coronel) Nowadays, the Philippines boasts a rowdy and vibrant press which thinks of itself as the freest in Asia. With the fall of the Marcos regime, a 14-year-old system of media controls collapsed overnight.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Shafer|first=Richard|year=1991|title=Press Freedom in the Philippines: A Legacy of American Colonialism|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01296612.1991.11726348|journal=Journal of the Asian Media Information and Communication Centre|language=en|publisher=Taylor & Francis|volume=18|issue=1|pages=3–10|doi=10.1080/01296612.1991.11726348|issn=0129-6612|url-access=subscription}}</ref> ''People v. Santos, et al.'' is one of multiple legal cases filed by various government agencies against ''Rappler''. Collectively, these have been described by ''[[The Guardian]]'' and [[Reporters Without Borders]] as "judicial harassment".<ref>{{Cite news|last=Ratcliffe|first=Rebecca|date=June 15, 2020|title=Journalist Maria Ressa found guilty of 'cyberlibel' in Philippines|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/15/maria-ressa-rappler-editor-found-guilty-of-cyber-libel-charges-in-philippines|access-date=June 18, 2020|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref name=":10" />

[[Vice President of the Philippines|Vice President]] [[Leni Robredo]], the leader of the opposition, argued that the verdict was intended as an instruction to the opposition to "keep quiet".<ref>{{Cite news|date=June 15, 2020|title=Robredo: Maria Ressa guilty verdict tells gov't critics to 'keep quiet or you're next'|url=https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/06/15/20/robredo-maria-ressa-guilty-verdict-tells-govt-critics-to-keep-quiet-or-youre-next|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=ABS-CBN News|language=en|via=''[[Reuters]]'', [[Agence France-Presse]]}}</ref> [[Hillary Clinton]] echoed a similar sentiment; while [[Madeleine Albright]] said she "stands with Maria Ressa".<ref>{{Cite news|last=Flores|first=Helen|date=June 17, 2020|title=Hillary, Albright back Ressa on libel case|url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/06/17/2021487/hillary-albright-back-ressa-libel-case|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=The Philippine Star}}</ref> The [[National Union of Journalists of the Philippines]] (NUJP) declared that the verdict "basically kills freedom of speech and of the press" and has led to a "dark day ... for all Filipinos."<ref name=":13">{{Cite web|last=Pelayo|first=Marje|date=June 16, 2020|title=Malacanang reminds critics: Cyberlibel Act passed under Aquino Administration|url=https://www.untvweb.com/news/malacanang-reminds-critics-cyberlibel-act-passed-under-aquino-administration/|access-date=June 18, 2020|website=[[UNTV News]]|language=en-us}}</ref> J.J. Disini, who represented Ressa and Santos during the trial, criticized the verdict.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Buan|first=Lian|date=January 22, 2018|title=Rappler libel complaint dangerous for media, bloggers – cyber lawyer|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/194226-ressa-santos-cyberlibel-case-disini-dangerous-bloggers|access-date=June 18, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref>

The [[United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights]] suggested that the case was part of a "pattern of [[intimidation]]" against the [[Philippine press]],<ref name=":2" /> while [[Amnesty International]] called on the judiciary to "quash" the cases,<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=June 15, 2020|title=Quash Maria Ressa and Rey Santos' conviction in the Philippines|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/06/philippines-quash-conviction-of-rappler-ressa-santos/|access-date=June 19, 2020|publisher=[[Amnesty International]]|language=en}}</ref> as did [[Human Rights Watch]].<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|date=June 15, 2020|title=Philippines: Rappler Verdict a Blow to Media Freedom|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/15/philippines-rappler-verdict-blow-media-freedom|access-date=June 19, 2020|publisher=[[Human Rights Watch]]|language=en}}</ref> A group of United States [[United States Senate|senators]] called the verdict a "travesty of justice" that "set dangerous precedents".<ref>{{Cite news|last=Tomacruz|first=Sofia|date=June 16, 2020|title=U.S. senators warn verdict vs Ressa sets 'dangerous precedent'|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/263964-united-states-senators-warn-verdict-vs-ressa-sets-dangerous-precedent|access-date=June 19, 2020|work=Rappler|language=en}}</ref> The [[European External Action Service]] commented that the verdict "raises serious doubts over the respect for freedom of expression as well as for the [[rule of law]] in the Philippines."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Battu-Henriksson|first=Virginie|author-link=Virginie Battu-Henriksson|date=June 16, 2020|title=Philippines: Statement by the Spokesperson on the conviction of Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos|url=https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/80936/philippines-statement-spokesperson-conviction-maria-ressa-and-reynaldo-santos_en|access-date=June 19, 2020|website=[[European External Action Service]]|publisher=[[European Commission]]|language=en}}</ref> This sentiment was echoed by [[United Nations special rapporteur]] [[David Kaye (academic)|David Kaye]].<ref name=":14">{{Cite news|last=Pazzibugan|first=Dona Z.|date=June 18, 2020|title=US State Department, EU, UN official 'concerned' about Ressa cyberlibel conviction|url=https://globalnation.inquirer.net/188624/us-state-dept-eu-un-official-concerned-about-libel-conviction|access-date=June 19, 2020|newspaper=Philippine Daily Inquirer|language=en}}</ref> The United States [[Department of State]]'s response expressed "concern" over the verdict,<ref name=":14" /><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Sippy|first1=Zachariah W.|last2=Ball|first2=Benjamin|last3=Chaffers|first3=Shannon E.|display-authors=2|date=June 16, 2020|title=As Maria Ressa '86 holds the line, we must act now|url=https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2020/06/as-maria-ressa-86-holds-the-line-we-must-act-now-philippines-rappler|access-date=June 19, 2020|website=[[The Daily Princetonian]]}}</ref> to which the [[Malacañang]] reacted negatively, warning of another possible "setback" in [[Philippines–United States relations|diplomatic relations]] if the State Department continued to interfere.<ref name=":14" />

Spokesperson [[Harry Roque]] suggested the law was passed under the [[Administration of Benigno Aquino III|previous administration]].<ref name=":13" /> Roque had previously  been a petitioner in ''[[Disini v. Sec'y of Justice]]'' which attempted to have cyberlibel removed as an offence.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Roque|first=Harry|date=March 2, 2014|title=High court on libel: Lost in overbreadth|url=https://opinion.inquirer.net/72119/high-court-on-libel-lost-in-overbreadth|access-date=June 6, 2020|newspaper=Philippine Daily Inquirer|language=en}}</ref> Roque also emphasized that the prosecution of ''[[Rappler]]'' is not [[Politically motivated trials|politically motivated]],<ref>{{Cite news|date=June 16, 2020|title=Maria Ressa, ex-Rappler writer can seek probation to avoid jail time — Roque|url=https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/6/16/Maria-Ressa-Reynaldo-Santos-Rappler-cyber-libel-probation-Roque.html|access-date=June 19, 2020|work=CNN Philippines|language=en|archive-date=June 21, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200621003625/https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/6/16/Maria-Ressa-Reynaldo-Santos-Rappler-cyber-libel-probation-Roque.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> and has urged people to respect the ruling. He has also argued that in 2008, Duterte, the [[mayor of Davao]] at that time, had helped a journalist jailed on a libel charge, and that Duterte does not prosecute journalists who make accusations against him.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Esguerra|first=Darryl John|date=June 15, 2020|title=Duterte supports press freedom, never sued journalists – Palace|url=https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1291852/duterte-supports-press-freedom-never-sued-journalists-palace|access-date=June 19, 2020|newspaper=Philippine Daily Inquirer|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=June 15, 2020|title=Palace maintains Supreme Court's ruling on libel|url=https://pcoo.gov.ph/news_releases/palace-maintains-supreme-courts-ruling-on-libel/|access-date=June 18, 2020|website=[[Presidential Communications Operations Office]]}}</ref> Roque also stated that Duterte's appointment of Keng's daughter as a member of the [[Philippine Commission on Women]] on September 19, 2019, did not affect the integrity of the verdict against Ressa.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Ranada|first=Pia|date=October 9, 2019|title=Duterte gives Wilfredo Keng's daughter a government post|language=en|work=Rappler|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/240481-duterte-gives-wilfredo-keng-daughter-government-post|access-date=June 21, 2020}}</ref><ref name=":17">{{Cite news|last=Rita|first=Joviland|date=June 17, 2020|title=Appointments of Judge Montesa's husband, Keng's daughter do not affect integrity of verdict against Ressa —Roque|language=en-US|work=[[GMA News Online]]|url=https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/743018/appointments-of-judge-montesa-s-husband-keng-s-daughter-do-not-affect-integrity-of-verdict-against-ressa-roqu/story/|access-date=June 21, 2020}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy]]

== Notes ==
<references group="note" />

== External links ==
* The [https://www.manilatimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/DECISION-Pp-V.-SANTOS.pdf Decision of the Court] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200620142941/https://www.manilatimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/DECISION-Pp-V.-SANTOS.pdf |date=June 20, 2020 }}

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{Rodrigo Duterte}}

[[Category:Philippine case law]]
[[Category:Defamation case law]]
[[Category:Journalism in the Philippines]]
[[Category:2020 in the Philippines]]
[[Category:Duterte administration controversies]]