People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler | |
---|---|
Court | Manila Regional Trial Court |
Branch | 46 |
Full case name | |
People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Santos, Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa and Rappler, Inc. | |
Decided | June 15, 2020 |
Citation | R-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:
|
Ruling | |
Ponente | Rainelda 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]
DOJResolution
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).:7
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).:16
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).:15
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search