Jump to content

People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valenzuela400 (talk | contribs) at 11:51, 25 March 2024 (→Appeal: "Amicus curiae"-Intervention). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler
CourtManila Regional Trial Court
Branch46
Full case name
People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Santos, Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa and Rappler, Inc.
DecidedJune 15, 2020 (2020-06-15)
CitationR-MNL-19-01141-CR
Case history
Prior action(s)NBI and Keng v. Santos et al. (XVI-INV-18C-00049)[1]
Related action(s)
Alleged ownership irregularities:
  • Securities and Exchange Commission: In re: Rappler Inc. and Rappler Holdings Corporation (SP Case No. 08-17-001)
  • Court of Appeals: Rappler Inc. v. SEC (CA-G.R. SP No. 154292)
  • Pasig City RTC Branch 265: People of the Philippines v. Maria Ressa (R-PSG-19-00737-CR)

Alleged defamation:

Alleged tax evasion:

  • Pasig City RTC Branch 165: People of the Philippines v. Rappler Holdings Corp. (R-PSG-18-02983-CR)
  • Court of Tax Appeals: People of the Philippines v. Rappler Holdings Corp. and Maria Ressa (Crim. Case No. O-679)
Ruling
PonenteRainelda Estacio-Montesa
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.
Laws applied
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
Constitution of the Philippines (1987).—Article III Section 4

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 Inc..[2] Accused of cyberlibel, Ressa was found guilty by a Manila Regional Trial Court on June 15, 2020.[3][4]: 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.[5] Santos, Ressa, and others were charged with cyberlibel retrospectively, as the article was originally published four months before the Cybercrime Prevention Act came into effect.[6][7] Rappler Inc., as a corporation, was not found liable; Santos, however, as author, was. Ressa, in her capacity of Rappler's chief executive officer, was also found liable.[8] By the time Santos was charged, he was no longer working as a journalist for Rappler.[9]

The court ruled that Ressa "did not offer a scintilla of proof that they verified the imputations of various crimes in the disputed article ... [Rappler] just simply published them as news in their online publication in reckless disregard of whether they are false or not."[4]: 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.[4]: 25  Ressa, along with Santos Jr., appealed to the Court of Appeals after the conviction.[8] However, the court upheld the decision, noting that the article is "defamatory or libelous per se";[10] a motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court, prompting Ressa to elevate the case to the Supreme Court for a judicial review.

The ruling was criticized by several human rights groups and international organizations,[11][12][13][14] with the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights describing the case as part of a "pattern of intimidation" against the Philippine press.[3]

Background

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 (R.A. 10175) was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012, becoming effective on October 3.[6] Among the actions criminalized by this law is "cyberlibel".[6] Six days after the law commenced, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order to stop its implementation.[15][16] On February 18, 2014, the Court declared that the law is constitutional, upholding most of its provisions including cyberlibel.[17]

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 "CJ using SUVs of 'controversial' businessmen".[5] 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 impeached. As of December 2023, the article remains online.[5]

Santos Jr.'s article primarily relied on a 2002 Philippine Star article as a source,[18][19] as well as on an "intelligence report" prepared that same year by the National Security Council, which the article says implicated Keng in human trafficking and drug smuggling.[5][20] This report, however, was not presented to the Court as evidence.[4] On February 16, 2019, Philippine Star took down the aforementioned article after Keng threatened legal action.[21]

On December 20, 2017, Keng filed a complaint-affidavit before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to charge Santos, Jr. and Ressa, along with Rappler's treasurer James Bitanga and six others, with cyberlibel.[22][23] The NBI's Cybercrime Department argued that because of a legal gray area regarding the theory of "continuous publication",[note 1] it can be assumed that Keng saw the article in question after the passing of the law.[7] However, the NBI ultimately decided not to charge Rappler.[22] The 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",[note 2][24] which can be considered as re-publication according to the department.[2]

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-era law that is still in effect today.[2][25][26] 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.[27][1][20] The DOJ later dropped Bitanga and six others from the complaint, as their "part in the publication [had not been] established".[28]

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.[29] As of March 2019, she has paid more than ₱2 million in bail and travel bonds, the latter of which Ressa's camp labeled as "excessive".[30] She could potentially serve around 100 years in prison if she was to be found guilty on all cases.[31]

Aside from People v. Santos, et al., Rappler also faced a number of lawsuits filed by various government agencies, including on the irregularities on its ownership as well as allegations of tax evasion.[32][33] Ressa on multiple occasions had connected President Rodrigo Duterte to the legal cases filed the executive branch against Rappler.[34][35]

Trial

Ressa and Santos Jr. were arraigned on May 13, 2019.[36][better source needed] Their trial began on July 23, 2019.[37] They were represented by lawyers Theodore Te[36] and J.J. Disini of the FLAG.[38]

In the lead-up to the trial, the defendants' lawyers tried several times to achieve dismissal via motions to quash in February 2019,[39] motions to dismiss in April 2019,[39] and demurrers in November 2019.[40] All such motions were denied by the Court.[41]

The verdict was originally scheduled for April 3, 2020, but it was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[42] On the advice of counsel, neither Ressa nor Santos Jr. testified in their own defense.[43][44]

Verdict

After a trial that lasted for eight months,[45] Ressa and Santos Jr. were both found guilty of cyberlibel by Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa of the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46.[3][4]: 36  The verdict was handed down on June 15, 2020.[3][4]: 36  Although corporate liability against Rappler Inc. had been sought, the judge ruled that there was no corporate liability in this case.[4]: 28–29 [8] They were both sentenced to between six months and six years in prison,[4]: 36  but are entitled to bail while they have appeals pending in higher courts.[8] They were also both assessed fines of ₱400,000 for combined "moral damages" and "exemplary damages".[4]: 36 

In its ruling, the Court said that Ressa "did not offer a 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";[4]: 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;[4]: 25  this was criticized by several media outlets, as the position is common.[46][47]

The Court also drew an adverse inference from Ressa and Santos Jr.'s refusal to testify, relying on People v. Resano (G.R. 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".[4]: 27 [48]

The ruling was handed down in person, despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and general community quarantine.[49] Judge Estacio-Montesa ordered her clerk to first read out her 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.[50][51]

Appeal

Ressa appealed the guilty verdict both on her own behalf and of Santos Jr.,[3][8] who Rappler Inc. is covering the legal costs of.[9] When the 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 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".[52] 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.[53]

"Amicus curiae"-Intervention

The Supreme Court of the Philippines First Division's resolution dated January 24, 2024, granted Irene Khan's Motion for Leave to Intervene, to sit as an "amicus curiae" or chosen Expert and it also admitted and noted her 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 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.[54][55]

People of the Philippines v. Ressa

After the verdict, Keng sued Ressa again for cyberlibel, this time over a tweet she wrote on February 15, 2019, which contained a screenshot of the 2002 Philippine Star article discussed in the 2012 Rappler article.[56][57] Keng stated that by republishing the article, "[Ressa] feloniously communicated the malicious imputations against me not only to her 350,000 Twitter followers, but to anyone who has access to the internet."[58]

This second case, directed only against Ressa, was filed on November 23, 2020 at Makati RTC Branch 147.[59] The case was withdrawn by Keng on June 1, 2021, to "dedicate time and resources to support ongoing efforts to battle the pandemic".[60][61] 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 beyond reasonable doubt."[60]

This case does not affect the original guilty verdict under appeal.[62][60]

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.[63] Historically, since the end of martial law under Ferdinand Marcos, the Philippines was regarded as having one of the most free presses in Asia.[64][65][66][67] 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".[68][63]

Vice President Leni Robredo, the leader of the opposition, argued that the verdict was intended as an instruction to the opposition to "keep quiet".[69] Hillary Clinton echoed a similar sentiment; while Madeleine Albright said she "stands with Maria Ressa".[70] 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."[71] J.J. Disini, who represented Ressa and Santos during the trial, criticized the verdict.[72]

The United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights suggested that the case was part of a "pattern of intimidation" against the Philippine press,[3] while Amnesty International called on the judiciary to "quash" the cases,[12] as did Human Rights Watch.[13] A group of United States senators called the verdict a "travesty of justice" that "set dangerous precedents".[73] 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."[74] This sentiment was echoed by United Nations special rapporteur David Kaye.[75] The United States Department of State's response expressed "concern" over the verdict,[75][76] to which the Malacañang reacted negatively, warning of another possible "setback" in diplomatic relations if the State Department continued to interfere.[75]

Spokesperson Harry Roque suggested the law was passed under the previous administration.[71] Roque had previously been a petitioner in Disini v. Sec'y of Justice which attempted to have cyberlibel removed as an offence.[77] Roque also emphasized that the prosecution of Rappler is not politically motivated,[78] 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.[79][80] 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.[81][82]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ The misspelling is evation.

References

  1. ^ a b NBI and Keng v. Rappler Inc., et al., XVI-INV-18C-00049 (Philippine Department of Justice February 4, 2019), Text. p. 7
  2. ^ a b c "Despite NBI flip-flop, DOJ to indict Rappler for cyber libel". Rappler. February 4, 2019. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Ratcliffe, Rebecca (June 15, 2020). "Journalist Maria Ressa found guilty of 'cyberlibel' in Philippines". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved June 15, 2020.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa (June 15, 2020). "People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Santos Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa and Rappler Inc". Manila Regional Trial Court. Retrieved June 15, 2020 – via Abogado.com.ph.
  5. ^ a b c d Santos Jr., Reynaldo; Rufo, Aries (May 29, 2012). "CJ using SUVs of 'controversial' businessmen". Rappler. Retrieved December 8, 2023.
  6. ^ a b c Orendain, Simone (October 3, 2012). "Cybercrime Law in Philippines Draws Protests". Voice of America. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  7. ^ a b Buan, Lian (January 19, 2018). "NBI: Rappler can be liable for cyber libel despite non-retroactive law". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  8. ^ a b c d e Buan, Lian (June 15, 2020). "Maria Ressa, Rey Santos Jr convicted of cyber libel". Rappler. Retrieved June 15, 2020.
  9. ^ a b Buan, Lian (June 18, 2020). "'I'm scared to go to jail, I'm not as fearless as Maria', says Reynaldo Santos Jr". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  10. ^ Patag, Kristine Joy (July 12, 2022). "In rejecting Ressa appeal, CA says cyber libel can be filed over 15-year-old posts". Philstar. Retrieved August 24, 2022.
  11. ^ Cabato, Regine (June 15, 2020). "Conviction of Maria Ressa, hard-hitting Philippine American journalist, sparks condemnation". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 16, 2020.
  12. ^ a b "Quash Maria Ressa and Rey Santos' conviction in the Philippines". Amnesty International. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  13. ^ a b "Philippines: Rappler Verdict a Blow to Media Freedom". Human Rights Watch. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  14. ^ Editorial Board (June 15, 2020). "The Philippines slides toward autocracy". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  15. ^ "SC extends TRO on cybercrime law". GMA News. February 5, 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013.
  16. ^ "SC won't lift TRO on cybercrime law". Sunstar. February 5, 2013. Archived from the original on February 12, 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013.
  17. ^ Merueñas, Mark (February 18, 2014). "Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional – SC". GMA News. Retrieved May 20, 2016.
  18. ^ Alquitran, Non; Ocampo, Junep (August 12, 2002). "Influential businessman eyed in ex-councilor's slay". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on February 15, 2019. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via Google web cache via Archive.is.
  19. ^ Rey, Aika (February 17, 2019). "PhilStar.com takes down 2002 article on Wilfredo Keng". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  20. ^ a b "People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler". Global Freedom of Expression. Columbia University. Retrieved August 17, 2022.
  21. ^ "Philstar.com's statement on the 2002 article on Wilfredo Keng". The Philippine Star. February 16, 2019. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  22. ^ a b Buan, Lian (February 22, 2018). "NBI junks cyber libel complaint vs Rappler". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  23. ^ Keng, Wilfredo (December 20, 2017). "Affidavit-complaint". Makati. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via Scribd.
  24. ^ Navallo, Mike (June 14, 2020). "How correcting a typo got Maria into trouble: The cyberlibel case vs Rappler". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  25. ^ Robles, Raissa (February 16, 2019). "OPINION: DOJ uses wrong law to justify charging Maria Ressa with cyber libel beyond 1-year prescriptive period". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  26. ^ 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 (Act 3326, Section 1.d). Philippine Legislature. December 4, 1926.
  27. ^ Roque, H. Harry L. Jr. (February 23, 2017). "Chapter 9. The Philippine Supreme Court on Cyber Libel: Lost in Overbreadth". In Weisenhaus, Doreen; Young, Simon N. M. (eds.). Media Law and Policy in the Internet Age. Hart Publishing. pp. 127–140. doi:10.5040/9781782257417.ch-009. ISBN 978-1-78225-738-7.
  28. ^ Pulta, Benjamin (February 6, 2019). "DOJ approves cyber libel raps vs. Rappler". Philippine News Agency. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  29. ^ Reilly, Katie (February 21, 2019). "The Message Behind Maria Ressa's Cyber Libel Arrest". Time. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  30. ^ Navallo, Mike. "Ressa camp protests 'excessive' travel bond". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  31. ^ Moran, Padraig (June 18, 2020). "Facing possible jail time totalling 100 years, journalist Maria Ressa says she won't stop fighting for justice". CBC News. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  32. ^ "Rappler's incorporation papers revoked by SEC". ABS-CBN News. January 15, 2018. Retrieved January 17, 2018.
  33. ^ "Subpoenas sent to Rappler's Ressa, Bitanga for tax raps". ABS-CBN News. April 17, 2018. Retrieved April 18, 2018.
  34. ^ Rita, Joviland (June 16, 2020). "Maria Ressa contradicts Roque claim that Duterte values press freedom". GMA News Online. Retrieved June 19, 2020. 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.' 
  35. ^ Diokno, Chel (June 14, 2020). Forum on the cyber libel verdict against Maria Ressa, Rappler (YouTube live stream). Rappler. Event occurs at 10:49. We fast forward to three years later, July 2017, the president now is Duterte, he issues a 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.
  36. ^ a b Te, Theodore; Ressa, Maria (May 13, 2019). Maria Ressa arraigned for cyber libel; SC may be next option (YouTube video). Rappler. Event occurs at 0:00. Retrieved June 18, 2020. 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.
  37. ^ Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (July 23, 2019). "Philippines libel trial of journalist critical of Rodrigo Duterte begins". The Guardian. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  38. ^ Griffiths, James (June 15, 2020). "Philippines journalist Maria Ressa found guilty of 'cyber libel' in latest blow to free press". CNN Business. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  39. ^ a b Fernandez, Ria (April 15, 2019). "Manila judge rejects Maria Ressa's motion to dismiss cyberlibel case". Manila Bulletin. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  40. ^ Requejo, Rey E. (November 20, 2019). "Court to hear cyberlibel case vs. Ressa, reporter". Manila Standard. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  41. ^ "Court to resume cyberlibel hearing vs Maria Ressa". Abogado. December 4, 2019. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  42. ^ "Forum on the cyber libel verdict against Maria Ressa, Rappler". Rappler. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  43. ^ Pulta, Benjamin (June 15, 2020). "Manila court convicts Rappler CEO, writer on cyber libel". Philippine News Agency. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  44. ^ Nicole-Anne C. Lagrimas (June 15, 2020). "Court convicts Maria Ressa, ex-Rappler researcher of cyber libel". GMA News Online. Retrieved June 18, 2020. [N]either Ressa nor Santos took the witness stand.
  45. ^ Buan, Lian (June 2, 2020). "Verdict on Rappler, Maria Ressa cyber libel case out June 15". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  46. ^ Nery, John (June 16, 2020). "A nauseous verdict, an ignorant judge". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  47. ^ "Statement: Network condemns guilty verdict in cyber-libel case, says reasoning is based on falsehood, ignorance". Consortium on Democracy and Disinformation. June 16, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020. 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.
  48. ^ "Wrong move? Judge Montesa surprised why Ressa, co-accused didn't take the stand". Abogado. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  49. ^ Bengali, Shashank (June 15, 2020). "Philippine American journalist Maria Ressa convicted in cybercrime case". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  50. ^ "Libel in the court". Scientia. University of the Philippines Diliman College of Science. June 16, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via Medium.
  51. ^ Buan, Lian (June 15, 2020). "What Maria Ressa conviction means for reporting confidential sources". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  52. ^ Patag, Kristine Joy (July 26, 2022). "In appeal, Ressa and Santos question prescriptive period for cyber libel". Philstar.com. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  53. ^ Patag, Kristine Joy (October 10, 2022). "Appeals court junks Ressa cyber libel appeal; Supreme Court next". Philstar.com. Retrieved October 11, 2022.
  54. ^ Laqui, Ian (March 25, 2024). "SC allows UN expert to act as 'friend of the court' in Maria Ressa's cyber libel plea". The Philippine Star. Retrieved March 25, 2024.
  55. ^ Torres-Tupas, Tetch (March 25, 2024). "UN rapporteur allowed as 'friend of court' in Ressa's cyber libel case". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved March 25, 2024.
  56. ^ Lagrimas, Nicole-Anne C. (December 3, 2020). "Maria Ressa charged with cyber libel for 2nd time". GMA News Online. Retrieved June 1, 2022.
  57. ^ Buan, Lian (June 19, 2020). "Keng sues Ressa for cyber libel anew over a 2019 tweet". Rappler. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  58. ^ "Maria Ressa faces another cyber libel suit by same businessman over 2019 tweet". CNN Philippines. June 19, 2020. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  59. ^ Santos, Elmor (December 3, 2020). "Maria Ressa again charged with cyber libel, seeks case dismissal". CNN Philippines. Archived from the original on June 1, 2022. Retrieved May 31, 2020.
  60. ^ a b c Virgin, Lopez (June 1, 2021). "Wilfredo Keng withdraws 2nd cyber libel case vs. Maria Ressa". GMA News Online. Retrieved June 1, 2022.
  61. ^ "Businessman's withdrawal of cyber libel case vs Maria Ressa welcomed—lawyer". The Manila Times. June 3, 2021. Retrieved June 1, 2022.
  62. ^ Scott, Liam (June 3, 2021). "Libel Case Dismissed, But Philippines Journalist Still Faces Legal Challenges". Voice of America. Retrieved June 1, 2022.
  63. ^ a b "Philippines: Holding the line against Duterte's attacks". Reporters Without Borders. April 20, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  64. ^ Johnson, Howard (January 17, 2018). "Why Rappler is raising Philippine press freedom fears". BBC News. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  65. ^ Melinda Quintos de Jesus; et al. (2004). Press Freedom in the Philippines: A Study in Contradictions. Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. p. 7. ISBN 978-971-91955-6-6. [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.
  66. ^ Doronila, Amando; Coronel, Sheila S. (January 10, 2014). Losing control: freedom of the press in Asia (PDF). Canberra: Australian National University. pp. xii, 148. ISBN 978-1-925021-44-8. OCLC 862728315. (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.
  67. ^ Shafer, Richard (1991). "Press Freedom in the Philippines: A Legacy of American Colonialism". Journal of the Asian Media Information and Communication Centre. 18 (1). Taylor & Francis: 3–10. doi:10.1080/01296612.1991.11726348. ISSN 0129-6612.
  68. ^ Ratcliffe, Rebecca (June 15, 2020). "Journalist Maria Ressa found guilty of 'cyberlibel' in Philippines". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  69. ^ "Robredo: Maria Ressa guilty verdict tells gov't critics to 'keep quiet or you're next'". ABS-CBN News. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020 – via Reuters, Agence France-Presse.
  70. ^ Flores, Helen (June 17, 2020). "Hillary, Albright back Ressa on libel case". The Philippine Star. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  71. ^ a b Pelayo, Marje (June 16, 2020). "Malacanang reminds critics: Cyberlibel Act passed under Aquino Administration". UNTV News. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  72. ^ Buan, Lian (January 22, 2018). "Rappler libel complaint dangerous for media, bloggers – cyber lawyer". Rappler. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  73. ^ Tomacruz, Sofia (June 16, 2020). "U.S. senators warn verdict vs Ressa sets 'dangerous precedent'". Rappler. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  74. ^ Battu-Henriksson, Virginie (June 16, 2020). "Philippines: Statement by the Spokesperson on the conviction of Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos". European External Action Service. European Commission. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  75. ^ a b c Pazzibugan, Dona Z. (June 18, 2020). "US State Department, EU, UN official 'concerned' about Ressa cyberlibel conviction". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  76. ^ Sippy, Zachariah W.; Ball, Benjamin; et al. (June 16, 2020). "As Maria Ressa '86 holds the line, we must act now". The Daily Princetonian. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  77. ^ Roque, Harry (March 2, 2014). "High court on libel: Lost in overbreadth". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 6, 2020.
  78. ^ "Maria Ressa, ex-Rappler writer can seek probation to avoid jail time — Roque". CNN Philippines. June 16, 2020. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  79. ^ Esguerra, Darryl John (June 15, 2020). "Duterte supports press freedom, never sued journalists – Palace". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  80. ^ "Palace maintains Supreme Court's ruling on libel". Presidential Communications Operations Office. June 15, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  81. ^ Ranada, Pia (October 9, 2019). "Duterte gives Wilfredo Keng's daughter a government post". Rappler. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  82. ^ Rita, Joviland (June 17, 2020). "Appointments of Judge Montesa's husband, Keng's daughter do not affect integrity of verdict against Ressa —Roque". GMA News Online. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_of_the_Philippines_v._Santos,_Ressa_and_Rappler&oldid=1215480450"