Ahead of national elections in the Philippines next month, the state has stepped up its attacks on Nobel Peave laureate Maria Ressa and the news outlet she leads, Rappler, reports the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders global media watchdog.

“This dramatic escalation in the legal harassment of Maria Ressa and Rappler highlights the urgent need for the Philippines’ to decriminalise libel and do away with laws that are repeatedly abused to persecute journalists whose reporting exposes public wrongdoing,” said the Hold the Line Coalition Steering Committee.

“The state’s blatant attempts to suppress Rappler’s election-related fact-checking services is an unacceptable attempt to cheat the public of their right to accurate information, which is critical during elections.”

The Philippines president election is on May 9.

Fourteen new cyber libel complaints have been made against Rappler in recent weeks, naming several journalists and their sources in connection with reporting on President Rodrigo Duterte’s pastor Apollo Quiboloy, who is on the FBI’s “most wanted” list, and eight of his followers.

Quiboloy and his associates were charged with conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion; sex trafficking of children; marriage fraud; fraud, and misuse of visas; and various money laundering offences.

Quiboloy’s company Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI), which has attacked independent journalists and news outlets reporting critically on the Duterte administration, was recently granted a TV licence by the government.

However, Rappler reports today that a panel of prosecutors in Manila has thrown out seven cyber libel complaints filed against Rappler Incorporated, four journalists, an academic, and three former members of Quiboloy’s Davao-based Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KOJC) in connection with a series of news reports and interviews about the influential doomsday preacher.

In addition to these cases, Ressa has been named personally as one of 17 reporters, editors and executives, and seven news organisations in cyber libel complaints brought by Duterte government cabinet minister Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi.

Legal harassment
He alleges Ressa and the other named individuals and organisations “publicly accused [him] of graft” by reporting on a graft suit filed against him and a businessman.

Cusi is demanding each of the accused pay him 200 million pesos (nearly US$4 million) in damages.

Ressa did not write the article published by Rappler.

If the authorities choose to prosecute these cases, they will become criminal charges with potentially heavy jail sentences attached.

Having already been convicted of one criminal cyber libel charge, which is under appeal, and facing multiple other pre-existing legal cases, Ressa testified before the US Senate last week about the state-enabled legal harassment she experiences:

“All told, I could go to jail for the rest of my life. Because I refuse to stop doing my job as a journalist. Because Rappler holds the line and continues to protect the public sphere.”

In parallel, Rappler is facing another legal challenge, with the Philippines’ Solicitor-General petitioning the Supreme Court to void Rappler’s fact-checking agreement with the Commission of Elections (COMELEC).

Countering disinformation
As a result, this collaboration between Rappler and COMELEC designed to counter disinformation associated with the presidential poll has been temporarily halted — just over a month from the election.

“This new wave of cases and complaints, which represents an egregious attack on press freedom, is designed to undermine the essential work of fact-checking and critical reporting during elections — acts which help uphold the integrity of democratic processes.

“Rappler must be allowed to perform the essential public service of exposing falsehoods, particularly during the election period, even when these prove politically damaging for those in power,” the coalition said.

The Philippines is ranked 138th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

Statement by Julie Posetti (ICFJ), Gypsy Guillén Kaiser (CPJ), and Daniel Bastard (RSF) on behalf of the Hold the Line Coalition.

• The #HTL Coalition comprises more than 80 organisations around the world. This statement is issued by the #HoldTheLine Steering Committee, but it does not necessarily reflect the position of all or any individual coalition members or organisations.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Timor-Leste’s Journalist Association (AJTL) and journalism students marched through the streets of the capital Dili today calling on the government to scrap plans to change the law to make defamation a criminal offence.

Under the proposed law journalists could face jail sentences.

Opponents of the proposed law say it is an attack on democracy in a country with the highest world press freedom ranking in the region.

Words by Bob Howarth, image by AJTL.

READ MORE: Timor-Leste: Can the criminal defamation law in Timor-Leste be stopped?

• Ramos-Horta slams criminal libel plan

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Manila Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa has denied the motion for partial reconsideration filed by Rappler journalists, and upheld the cyber libel conviction of Rappler CEO and executive editor Maria Ressa and former researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr.

“In view of the foregoing, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Accused Reynaldo Santos Jr and Maria Angelita Ressa is denied for lack of merit,” Montesa said in an order signed on Friday.

The next option for Ressa and Santos would be to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals.

READ MORE: Cases vs Maria Ressa, Rappler directors, staff since 2018

In denying the motion of Ressa and Santos, Montesa for the first time cited a Supreme Court First Division ruling from 2018, which says that cyber libel prescribes not 12 years, but 15 years – an even longer period.

The prescription period is one of the most legally contested issues in the Ressa cyber libel case. Former Supreme Court senior associate justice Antonio Carpio maintains that the prescription period is one year.

The disputed Rappler article was published May 2012, which means complainant Wilfredo Keng had the right to sue only until May 2013 if the one year prescription was followed. Keng filed the complaint only in October 2017.

Montesa found an “unpublished resolution of Tolentino v People,” which is a First Division ruling from the Supreme Court dated August 6, 2018.

Judge’s justification
Montesa quoted the resolution to justify her ruling that cyber libel does not prescribe in one year.

Although Montesa previously upheld the Department of Justice (DOJ) theory that cyber libel prescribes in 12 years, she is now citing the Tolentino resolution which says: “Following Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of libel in relation to RA 10175 now prescribes in 15 years.”

“Thus, the Court cannot apply the 1-year prescriptive period provided for under the Revised Penal Code as claimed by the defense,” Montesa said.

Montesa’s earlier ruling on prescription period, and Tolentino vs People, have A different legal basis.

Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), libel prescribes one year. The Cybercrime Law did not explicitly provide a prescription period for cyber libel.

This lack of a textual basis gave DOJ, and later on Montesa, an opening to cite the pre-war Act 3326 which lays down prescriptive periods for special laws.

The Cybercrime Law imposed penalties one degree higher for offenses under it. So from an original penalty of up to 6 years, cyber libel was now imposed a penalty of up to 12 years. Under the archaic Act 3326, that kind of crime prescribes in 12 years, in the DOJ’s and Montesa’s view.

Prescription of crimes
The Tolentino ruling, however, was based on Article 90 of the RPC which lays out prescription of crimes.

The First Division ruling said: “The new penalty (of cyber libel), therefore, becomes afflictive, following Section 25 6of the RPC… following Article 90 7of the RPC, the crime of libel in relation to RA 10175 now prescribes in fifteen (15) years.”

The 2nd paragraph of Article 90 says: “Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.”
Article 90

In his earlier column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, retired justice Carpio pointed out that Article 90 “is classified into two,” and that the 2nd classification still makes cyber libel’s prescription one year.

“Those based on the length or nature of the penalty, and those based on the crime itself regardless of the length or nature of the penalty. Under the first classification are, among others, crimes punishable by correctional penalty which prescribe in 10 years. Under the second classification are, among others, ‘libel and similar offenses’ which prescribe in one year,” Carpio wrote.

Indeed, the 4th and 5th paragraphs of Article 90 said: “The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year. The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.”

Cyber libel ‘not new crime’
In declaring the Cybercrime Law constitutional in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Disini vs Secretary of Justice that “cyber libel is actually not a new crime” from the RPC libel.

Thus, Carpio noted, “In such a case, the prescriptive period for cyber libel is governed by the RPC which prescribes its own prescriptive periods. Under Article 90 of the RPC, the crime of libel and other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.”

“The Tolentino citation was unnecessary because, under Disini, there is a specific prescriptive period and that is Art. 90. We will address that on appeal,” said Ressa and Santos’ lawyer, former Supreme Court spokesperson Ted Te.

Ressa faces 5 other criminal cases related to tax, and 3 criminal complaints, including another cyber libel complaint filed by Keng.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Rappler chief executive Maria Ressa and former researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr have filed a motion for partial reconsideration, appealing to Manila Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa to reconsider her decision that convicted the journalists of cyber libel.

Ressa and Santos’ lawyers from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) submitted their 132-page motion to the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 via email yesterday afternoon.

Copies were also mailed to the court and the prosecutors. The Manila RTC is still on lockdown due to possible exposure to personnel who were in contact with coronavirus-positive relatives.

READ MORE: ‘I’m scared to go to jail, I’m not as fearless as Maria’

The motion cited at least 13 errors committed by Judge Montesa in her June 15 verdict and accused her of malice.

In the motion, FLAG argued several key points and raised issues still largely unexplored with the very young, and still very contested, Philippine Cybercrime Law.

Among these are the following:

• Complainant Wilfredo Keng as public figure
• Malice
• Republication
• Prescription period of libel
• Intervention of the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Professor David Kaye
• Imposition of fines instead of imprisonment for libel

The motion for reconsideration (MR) did not mince words in criticising Judge Montesa’s decision, saying “the court has resorted to language that borders on the sarcastic and, at times, crosses over to the partial”.

Free speech legal protection
FLAG asked the court to consider Philippine jurisprudence that fiercely protects free speech and apply them to the cybercrime law.

“The self-distancing by the court of this case from the issue of press freedom is so pronounced as to be unmistakable. In the process of that self-distancing, however, the fundamental principles of constitutional law on ‘content-based restrictions’ that have become hornbook law have been ignored,” said the MR.

Libel in the Revised Penal Code presumes malice in defamatory imputations even if they are true. Over the years, Philippine jurisprudence has made a distinction between a public figure and a private person, applying an actual malice rule for public figures.

It means that for a public official, malice on the part of the accused must be proven and not presumed.

Because the bar for determining malice is so high, even erroneous statements are not considered malicious – as long as there is failure to prove a “high degree of awareness of probable falsity”.

Judge Montesa ruled that because Wilfredo Keng was a private person, then malice was presumed.

FLAG said Keng was considered a public figure, citing the case Ayer vs Capulong which said a public figure was “anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon him as a person”.

Public figure definition
“Its definition of a public figure is important to this case, as it clearly establishes that even non-governmental officials are considered public figures,” said FLAG, arguing that the rule on actual malice must be applied in the case.

Keng’s complaint was based on a 2012 story linking him to the late chief justice Renato Corona, who faced an impeachment trial.

Judge Montesa lectured the journalists on the supposed failure to verify information in an intelligence document that linked Keng to illicit activities in that story, saying that they were being reckless.

Before the verdict, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression Professor David Kaye submitted an unsolicited expert’s brief, making a case for how libel should be decriminalised, and how the court must prudently apply the cybercrime law while libel remains a criminal offence.

Judge Montesa merely “noted” Kaye’s brief, which, in the judiciary, means it was just acknowledged for the record.

International law principles
“With due respect, considering the opinion of Professor Kaye in his Brief would allow the court to arrive at a judgment that is more in accord not only with the facts and evidence presented during the trial but also with international law principles that govern the country’s commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” said the motion.

As a final argument, FLAG said Judge Montesa should have been guided by jurisprudence, and by the Supreme Court’s own circular, that if it can, courts must impose only fines rather than imprisonment on libel cases.

Ressa and Santos were sentenced to a maximum of 6 years in jail.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the up to six years in jail sentence that Philippine journalist Maria Ressa faces on a criminal libel charge in a “shocking judicial masquerade” in Manila yesterday.

It called on the country’s justice system to recover a “semblance of credibility” by overturning her conviction on appeal, RSF said in a statement as global media freedom and human rights watchdogs protested over the verdict.

A Manila regional court convicted Maria Ressa, co-founder and director of the independent news website Rappler, over an article published in 2012 that was the subject of a complaint by a businessman.

READ MORE: Maria Ressa found guilty in blow to Philippines’ press freedom

But the case was brought under a cyber crime law that took effect after the article’s publication. Rappler‘s former researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr received the same sentence.

Both were allowed to post bail, pending an appeal.

As no criminal legislation can be retroactive, the National Bureau of Investigation dismissed the case in February 2018. But President Rodrigo Duterte’s Department of Justice decided otherwise.

‘Continuous publication’
It revived the case in February 2019 on the grounds that a supposed principle of “continuous publication” could be applied to websites.

“By passing this extremely harsh sentence at the end of utterly Kafkaesque proceedings, the Philippine justice system has demonstrated a complete lack of independence from the executive,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“This sentence bears the malevolent mark of President Duterte and his desire, by targeting Rappler and the figure of Maria Ressa, to eliminate all criticism whatever the cost.

“We urge Manila’s judges to restore a semblance of credibility to the Philippine judicial system by overturning this conviction on appeal.”

?? @rapplerdotcom‘s @mariaressa could get six years in jail! By passing this harsh sentence after utterly Kafkaesque proceedings, the #Philippines‘ justice system has demonstrated a complete lack of independence from from pdt #Duterte‘s administration. https://t.co/RSK6RARyfM

— RSF (@RSF_inter) June 15, 2020

Systematic harassment
This conviction of Ressa and Rappler is the latest chapter in the systematic judicial harassment to which they have been subjected by various government agencies for more than two years.

Either directly or through Ressa, the website is facing 10 other similar complaints, each as baseless as the other, with the aim of intimidating its journalists.

“What with denying its reporters access to the presidential palace, threatening to withdraw its licence and accusing it of tax evasion, the authorities have stopped at nothing to harass Rappler, even arbitrarily detaining Ressa overnight in February 2019,” said Bastard.

ABS-CBN, the biggest Philippine broadcast network and one of the few other media outlets to dare criticise the government, had its franchise withdrawn last month.

Its radio stations and TV channels all stopped broadcasting on May 5 at the behest of the Justice Department and National Telecommunications Commission.

The country’s authoritarian president had warned the network’s executives last December: “If you expect that [the franchise] will be renewed, I’m sorry. I will see to it that you’re out.”

After falling seven places since 2017, the Philippines is ranked 136th out of 180 countries and territories in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index.

‘Damaging precedent’
In Brisbane, Professor Peter Greste, director and spokesperson of the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom and UNESCO chair of journalism and communication at the University of Queensland, said the verdict set “an extraordinarily damaging precedent” for Asia-Pacific and global press freedom.

“To suggest there was no political pressure in this case would be incredibly naïve. The Philippine government has made it abundantly clear that they don’t think Maria should be free. The judge will have been acutely aware of this pressure.

“As a former political prisoner myself, I am deeply concerned about Maria and her former colleague, researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr. who was also convicted in this case. More broadly though, I am concerned about what this means for the people of the Philippines.

“They might not all read Maria’s website, Rappler.com, but they all benefit from a free press that is able to question and challenge those in power. This judgment strikes a blow for every independent journalist in the country, chilling the kind of enquiry that makes democracy work.

“But this is not just about the Philippines. The human rights group, Freedom House, has charted a decline in democracy across the Asian region, and this conviction accelerates that trend.

“The AJF urges democratic governments – including Australia’s – to respond swiftly and decisively. This is a test case for the world’s resolve in standing up to authoritarianism by supporting press freedom.”

Maria Ressa found guilty in blow to Philippines’ press freedom #cyberlibel #mediafreedom @pacmedcentre @cnnphilippines @rapplerdotcom @mongster @dannyarao https://t.co/P6h8lNvEYr pic.twitter.com/FL75VyrdOy

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) June 15, 2020

‘Another nail in coffin’
In Auckland, Professor David Robie, director of the Pacific Media Centre, said the conviction of Rappler’s Maria Ressa and Raynaldo Santos Jr “drives another nail into the coffin of a free press and democracy” in the Philippines.

“It is also a chilling cautionary tale for the Asia-Pacific region and especially for those Pacific countries, such as Papua New Guinea and Fiji, that have imposed draconian cyber crime and social media laws that are really designed to stifle free expression and a free media.

“Fiji is currently deploying its social media law in a blatant attempt to muzzle its democratic opposition and intimidate the media. The behaviour of the state and security forces frequently display the typical characteristics of a virtual dictatorship.”

The Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch freedom project collaborates with the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A court in the Philippines has found Rappler chief executive and executive editor Maria Ressa, and a former Rappler reporter, Reynaldo Santos Jr, guilty of cyber libel, in a controversial case seen as a major test of press freedom under the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte.

In a ruling delivered today, the court sentenced Ressa and Santos Jr to six months and one day to as much as six years in jail. It allowed both to post bail, pending an appeal.

They are the first two journalists in the Philippines to be convicted for cyber libel.

READ MORE: 30 media freedom groups, academics, journalists protest over TV shutdown

Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa also ordered the payment equivalent to US$8000 for moral damages and exemplary damages to the businessman who lodged the complaint. The complainant originally sought an estimated US$1 million in damages.

Rappler, as an online news publication, has been cleared of liability.

In a press conference following the verdict, Ressa vowed to fight the case, saying the case of Rappler was “a cautionary tale” for the Philippine media.

“It is a blow to us. But it is also not unexpected,” Ressa said. “I appeal to you the journalists in this room, the Filipinos who are listening, to protect your rights.

‘A cautionary tale’
“We are meant to be a cautionary tale. We are meant to make you afraid. But don’t be afraid. Because if you don’t use your rights, you will lose them.

“Freedom of the press is the foundation of every single right you have as a Filipino citizen. If we can’t hold power to account, we can’t do anything,” she added, as she fought back tears.

Santos said he was “disappointed” with the verdict and felt “very sad” at the outcome.

The case is the first of at least eight active cases filed against Ressa and her media organisation since Duterte came to office in 2016.

Following the verdict, Harry Roque, the presidential spokesman said “the court decision should be respected”, adding that Duterte “has never been behind any effort to curtail press freedom in the country.”

In a statement, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) called the decision “a dark day” not only for independent Philippine media but for all Filipinos.

“The verdict basically kills freedom of speech and of the press,” the organisation said. “But we will not be cowed. We will continue to stand our ground against all attempts to suppress our freedoms.”

UN Special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression David Kaye said: “This a tragedy for Philippine democracy. This injustice cannot stand.”

‘A menacing blow’
The Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) described the latest development as “a menacing blow to press freedom.”

Amnesty International’s regional director Nicholas Bequelin described the verdict as a “sham” and should be quashed.

“The accusations against them are political, the prosecution was politically-motivated and the sentence is nothing but political,” Bequelin said in a statement.

“This guilty verdict follows the shutdown of ABS-CBN, which remains off the air – also after coming under the President’s attacks. The international community cannot remain silent in the face of this brazen vendetta against the press.”

The cyber libel case against Ressa and her publication stemmed from a 2017 complaint filed by a businessman over a Rappler story that was published in 2012, before the cybercrime law was even passed.

The businessman, Wilfredo Keng, said his reputation was “defamed” when he was linked to the then-Supreme Court Chief Justice, who was later removed from office through an impeachment.

The libel complaint was initially dismissed in 2018, but government investigators under the office of President Duterte, quickly reversed their decision and recommended that Ressa and Santos be prosecuted. Prosecutors said they are only following the law.

‘Absurd’ case
Around the same time, Duterte had sought to close Rappler for alleged foreign ownership and tax evasion – allegations Rappler denied.

The news site had aroused Duterte’s ire for its relentless coverage of the war on drugs on which thousands of people have died. It also exposed a pro-Duterte network circulating alleged fake news on social media.

Aside from Rappler, Duterte has also targeted and forced the closure of ABS-CBN, the largest media company in the Philippines, while the owners of the country’s largest newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, were forced to sell the publication to a Duterte ally after publishing news reports and editorials critical of the mounting deaths.

In a statement, the International Centre for Journalists condemned the “state-sponsored legal harassment in the Philippines.

“ICFJ will continue to support her and her team as they report the news – despite official attempts to silence them.”

Rappler – Maria Ressa
Ahead of the verdict, Carlos Conde, of Human Rights Watch in the Philippines, said the case against Rappler “should never have been filed to begin with.”

“The absurdity of this particular case against Maria Ressa – prosecutors deemed the story in question ‘republished’ after Rappler corrected one word that was misspelled – suggests the desperation of those behind it to silence her and Rappler,” Conde said in a statement to Al Jazeera.

Jose Manuel Diokno

During an online forum today, Jose Manuel Diokno, a leading human rights lawyer, predicted a “long battle ahead” as the defendants moved to file an appeal.

“This is not the end of it,” said Diokno, a critic of the Duterte administration and opposition candidate for senator in 2019.

“There’s a strong need for us to generate a lot of public opinion, a lot of press on the government, on the courts, to look very deeply into this case. The ramifications of this case go deep into whether we can still call the country a real democracy.”

Ted Regencia writes for Al Jazeera. The article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Former East Timorese President José Ramos-Horta says it is not opportune for the government to be debating the possible criminalisation of defamation, with the risk of jeopardizing citizens’ rights.

Instead, he says, the Timor-Leste government should concentrate on issues like the economy.

“I don’t think it is a priority issue for the government. Instead of the government and the parliament wasting energy and time discussing new laws, which will constrain our democracy, it is better that they focus on the dynamisation of our economy that is completely paralysed.” he told the Portuguese news agency Lusa.

READ MORE: Criminal defamation in Timor-Leste

Ramos-Horta reacted yesterday to the news advanced by Lusa on Saturday that the Timorese government wants to criminalise defamation and injuries in response to situations of offence of honour, good name and reputation of individuals and entities, in the media and social networks.

The proposed measures, introduced in a draft decree-law to amend the Penal Code, prepared by the Ministry of Justice and to which Lusa had access, provide for prison sentences for defamation and injuries, for the crime of offending the prestige of a person. collective or similar, and the crime of offending the memory of a deceased person.

“I appeal to the Prime Minister to tell the government that we have other priorities. Let us give our society total freedom to speak and criticise,” said Ramos-Horta.
|
“It is what the Prime Minister must do, to show that he is above any suspicion of wanting to hamper public opinion and citizens’ rights,” he stressed.

‘Draconian’ laws
Ramos-Horta recalled that some laws already passed in the media sector were considered “draconian” at the international level, contributing to lower Timor-Leste’s rating in terms of press freedom.

“I don’t see how this new law will help freedom of expression in Timor-Leste and the name of Timor-Leste as a full democracy”, he stressed.

The Timorese historical leader also criticised the fact that the proposal mixes social networks – “which are almost like a coffee conversation” with the media, even if using new technologies and platforms.

“I do not see that over the years the proliferation of social networks has affected in any way, the security, peace or development of the country and the dignity or prestige of the government,” he said.

“Governors are individuals like everyone else. It is not because they are President, Prime Minister or deputies that they are suddenly untouchable people,” he said.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner says that it is “preferable for the good name of those who are open to government” and to act only in cases where “incitement to racial violence or hatred” is taken.

Parliamentary assaults
As an example, he mentions the incidents last month in the Timorese National Parliament, with assaults between deputies, overturned tables, shouting, shoving and the intervention of police officers.

“There has been no greater unrest than what has happened in Parliament. The media has faithfully reported what happened, as it reports bombastic statements that some leaders have made against each other, from different sides,” he said.

“If we do not want the media and social networks to report embarrassing things that do not dignify, let us behave with greater civility,” he said.

Even so, Ramos-Horta asked journalists to be more careful to prove facts before reporting the news, noting that there have been such examples in the country’s media.

The Pacific Media Centre republishes Antonio Sampaio‘s articles with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Tempo Timor in Dili

Proposals to make defamation a crime in Timor-Leste have sparked public debate about a controversial law that could see people jailed for their opinions on popular platforms like Facebook.

Supporters of criminalising defamation argue that the growing instances of leaders being cursed and abused on Facebook – with more than 400,000 users in a population of 1.3 million – is “not public debate”.

Opponents claim the proposed law will limit media freedom and prevent the expression of public opinion that has so far been protected by law.

READ MORE: Bob Howarth’s Pacific Journalism Review article on Timor-Leste media

On December 6, 2005, the Constitutional Government ratified the Criminal Law Act, including a section which defined defamation as a crime.

This led to civil society protests to then President Xanana Gusmão in January 2006.

The fourth Constitutional Government led by Prime Minister Xanana had planned “to action” defamation into criminal law.

Then on December 12, 2018 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Timor-Leste used Indonesian Criminal Code to criminalise defamation, thus targeting a journalist who had reported on issues raised over a prison guard uniforms contract

Draft criminal law
At the same time, a draft criminal law on defamation was prepared by the Constitutional Government. But after being widely criticised by civil society, the new Timor-Leste Penal Code did not include defamation as a crime.

The court tried former Minister of Justice Lucia Lobato in 2012. She was convicted of corruption and sentenced to 18 months jail.

President Taur Matan Ruak pardoned her in August 2014.

Even though the Criminal Code does not apply to defamation, there is still one section “denuncia Calunioza”, which presents a threat to the work of journalists.

The Timor-Leste Prosecutor’s Office investigated a Timor Post newspaper journalist after the Prosecutor’s Office received a complaint from the leader of the sixth Constitutional Government.

The court tried and sentenced the reporter because of the news he wrote.

After government changes and changes in information technology became increasingly advanced, the campaign to criminalise defamation emerged again in the eighth Constitutional government led by Prime Minister Taur Matan Ruak.

Press Council critical
The president of the Press Council of Timor-Leste (Consuelo de Impreza – CI), Gil Guterres, strongly disagrees with the criminalisation campaign.

Guterres said that by criminalising defamation, Timor-Leste would undermine its international standing, and it would be a betrayal of the constitutional commitment to establish Timor-Leste as a state based on due process.

He said that when the reason used to criminalise defamation was only because people “cursed and insulted” the leaders, it was not justified.

The law was not only to protect the leaders – or “Maun Bo’ot sira” or “Big Brother” – but to protect all citizens.

“If you curse and insult them in the ‘discurso de ódio‘ (hate speech) category, we don’t need new laws anymore. The law of ‘denúnsia Kalunioza’ already exists,” he said.

Guterres said criminalisation of defamation would have a “chilling” affect on journalists. They would be afraid to be critical or conduct investigative journalism because of the threat of a prison sentence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Mata’afa Keni Lesa, editor of the Samoa Observer

It’s all happening in Samoa today.

For such a small country, there really is no dull moment.

With the latest political maneuvering within the ruling Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP), and the developments in the halls of law and justice during the past couple of days, things are certainly heating up.

READ MORE: Samoan police charge anti-government blogger

The worry is that there is no “atomic bomb” nearby – otherwise all these controversial developments could collectively trigger and cause something – we might regret later on. There is certainly a feeling of uneasiness in the air; that cannot be denied.

We say this because if as Christians we claim that there are no accidents in life, then we must pause and do some soul searching, to discover the true meaning to all these developments. What are they trying to tell us? What are the lessons we can take from it? And why are they happening?

-Partners-

There must be a method to thy madness. Folks, these things don’t just happen out of nowhere. There have been events building up to what we are seeing today, so that we get the feeling something has got to give, somewhere. And it’s not a question of whether it will happen; it’s rather of question of when and how it’s going to unfold.

As powerful as people say he is, Prime Minister Tuilaepa Dr Sa’ilele Malielegaoi has given a rare glimpse into his fears this week, perhaps explaining a lot of the things he’s been doing and saying lately.

What fear?
What is that fear? Well he’s afraid of the possibility that the political machine called the H.R.P.P. could fall apart.

How do we know? Well he said it himself.

In justifying the party’s decision to forcefully remove long serving member, La’auilalemalietoa Leuatea Polata’iva, Prime Minister Tuilaepa indicated he wants to use the decision against La’auli as a warning to other potential rebellion party members.

“If we don’t do this now, this will be the beginning of the destruction of this party because others will say; well nothing has been done to him so I can try too,” Tuilaepa admitted this week.

The reality is that it’s hard to imagine such a well-oiled machine like the HRPP destructing. It’s even harder to see that happening with a lone member expressing different views, like La’auli has done.

But they say a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. La’auli might be alone for now, but who is to say that this is not the beginning of the end?

Which is perhaps why Prime Minister Tuilaepa is hell bent on ensuring party members get the message that no one should dare test his authority. He has thrown everything including the book to make his case here.

Written agreement
“We have an agreement, a written agreement,” he said. “Before you become a member, we have an agreement where you pledge your allegiance to the party. That agreement is your commitment that you will not do anything to harm the party. So once you do something to harm the party, you have made a decision on yourself.”

He continued: “When matters pertaining to the Constitution are raised where amendments are needed, no one is allowed to [vote against the party’s position]. This is where this agreement comes into play.”

“This (HRPP) law applies to when the Constitution is the subject of discussions and amendments. It is why if you decide to vote against, that is you officially informing the party you want to leave and you don’t want to be involved anymore. Which is exactly what was done.”

Interesting, very interesting indeed. Where this episode will head to next we can only wait and see.

The trouble for the government – and Prime Minister Tuilaepa – is that it’s not just being attacked from within, there is a growing number of people – especially Samoans residing overseas – who have become so bold they are starting to stand up and speak their minds.

One of them went the extra mile and threw a pig’s head and dog food at the Prime Minister when he was speaking during a Samoa Airways launch in Brisbane recently. In Samoa this week, Talalelei Pauga was offered an opportunity to explain his actions and what he said was quite telling.

“My approach was on the political level and the reason why I used the pig’s head was because he called the people of my country stinking pigs,” he said. “He also called our people dogs and all that. If you don’t have respect for my people why should I have respect for him?”

‘No fear’
Pauga went on to say that he has “no fear, and I will die for my people.” Well that’s a bit extreme, isn’t it? But it perhaps shows the depth of feeling that exists when it comes to some of the latest political developments in Samoa today.

Speaking of extremes, another one unfolded on Friday when the police charged the man known as “King Faipopo” for allegedly making defamatory statements online against Prime Minister Tuilaepa.

Malele Paulo (his real name) had come to Samoa for his mother’s funeral when he was picked up by the police and charged on Friday night. He spent the night in police custody before he was finally let go yesterday, after surrendering his passport.

Paulo becomes the first person to be charged under the Criminal Libel Act, re-introduced by Prime Minister Tuilaepa himself, last year. This is going to be very, very, very interesting.

So stay tuned.

This editorial was published in the Sunday Samoan, the weekend edition of Samoa’s only daily newspaper, Samoa Observer. It is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Samoan anti-government blogger Malele Paulo has been arrested, reports RNZ Pacific.

Malele, who uses the pseudonym “King Faipopo”, is being held in police custody.

RNZ reported Malele had been charged with making threatening social media statements towards the Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, under a new criminal libel law.

Malele, who is based in Australia, was arrested in Apia after he returned to Samoa for his mother’s funeral.

In August, Tuilaepa said he was filing a lawsuit against Malele over accusations he had posted on his blog.

At the time, Malele as “King Faipopo” had challenged the prime minister to “come and get me”, according to the Samoa Observer.

-Partners-

Responding to a statement issued then by the Office of the Prime Minister for the authorities to begin the process to bring him back to Samoa, Malele said he was not afraid of the actions taken by the prime minister.

‘I ain’t scared’
“I ain’t scared of anyone on this earth, Tuilaepa Sailele. Don’t try and scare me because I am not afraid of you and I have said it so many times. I am only scared of God.

“I have apologised to the country but you did not reply to my apology. I apologise to the country, not you, and you did not respond.

“You said the police will come and arrest King Faipopo. So come and get me I am waiting,” he said in the video sent to the Samoa Observer.

Malele said he at the time he was also ready to face the prime minister in court.

In December 2017, Samoa Observer editor Mata’afa Keni Lesa criticised the country’s Parliament for unanimously enacting the new criminal libel law after it had been repealed four years earlier, according to RNZ Pacific.

Mata’afa said the law threatened media freedom in Samoa. While it would be ineffective against “faceless” bloggers it would “cripple” the maintream media, he said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the latest “absurd charges” that the Philippine Justice Department is planning to bring against the news website Rappler – this time libel charges in connection with an article posted in 2012 – and has called for the case to be dismissed.

The Justice Department has announced that Rappler, its editor and CEO Maria Ressa, and one of its former reporters, Reynaldo Santos Jr., are to be charged over a 2012 article about alleged ties between businessmen Wilfredo Keng and the then president of the country’s Supreme Court.

The charges, which carry a possible 12-year jail sentence, are based on the complaint that Keng brought five years later, in October 2017, under a cyber-crime law that was enacted several months after the article’s publication.

READ MORE: DOJ to indict Rappler for cyber libel

The National Bureau of Investigation dismissed the complaint in February 2018 because the law was not retroactive and because of a one-year moratorium on filing complaints, but reversed its decision the following month.

The Justice Department is reviving the case on the grounds that a principle of “continuous publication” can be applied to websites.

-Partners-

‘Grotesque persecution’
“The judicial harassment used by President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration to persecute Rappler’s journalists is becoming grotesque,” said Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“It would be almost laughable if it weren’t for the terrible judicial precedent that this decision would set, if upheld. We urge the court that handles this case to show independence and wisdom by dismissing it once and for all.”

The authorities have been systematically targeting Rappler for more than a year with the aim of intimidating its journalists. Four charges of tax evasion and failing to file income tax returns were brought against Rappler and Ressa in November.

A fifth, “completely spurious”, charge was brought in December, said RSF.

In January 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it was revoking Rappler’s licence on the grounds that it had violated a ban on foreign ownership of media outlets, spuriously claiming that, by issuing Philippine Depositary Receipts to raise funds, it had sold some of its stock to foreign investors.

RSF referred this “unacceptable attack on media independence” to various international bodies.

In response to Rappler’s appeal against the SEC decision, a court ruled in July that the website should be allowed “reasonable time” to resolve any dispute about its financial structure.

The Rappler reporter assigned to covering the Malacañang presidential palace was meanwhile denied entry to the palace in February 2018 on Duterte’s personal orders.

The Philippines is ranked 133rd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2018 World Press Freedom Index.

The Pacific Media Centre collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Let’s face it. For every beginning there is an end. And for every end there is a reward to be extended, the quality of which would depend entirely on how keenly persevering the attempt would be.

Still, now that Christmas is behind us, and another New Year is moving along steadily as we all knew it would, perhaps the time is right to get back to that rather eager grindstone, and let’s start hacking away at those fretful scruples, one more time.

So let’s begin with the story titled “Parliament brings back Criminal Libel” which Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, had for months been agonising over to the point where he literarily ended up making a fool of himself, to the delight of virtually everyone else.

Published in the Samoa Observer on 20 December 2017, the story said: “Parliament yesterday endorsed the government’s plan to re-introduce the Criminal Libel Act into the law books of Samoa.

“Abolished by the ruling Human Rights Protection Party in 2013, Members of Parliament unanimously agreed to bring back the law, when Parliament reconvened for the last time this year at Tuana’imato yesterday, 21 December 2017.”

Amazing!

The story went on to say: “The bill passed the first, second and third reading, within less than an hour.”

Wonderful!

‘Ghost writers’
It continued: “Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Mailielegaoi, has been instrumental in bringing back the law, as part of a government-driven effort to clamp down on ‘ghost writers’ such as ‘Ole Palemia’ and others who use fake social media pages, to attack members of the public.”

Now let’s wait a second. Who were these so-called ‘ghost writers’ that Prime Minister Tuilaepa was talking about back there? Indeed, who is the chap called ‘Ole Palemia.’”

It appears that neither Prime Minister Tuilaepa nor anyone else knows!

In fact, the story doesn’t say.

All it says is that: “The Speaker of Parliament, Leaupepe Tole’afoa Fa’afisi, said the re-introduction of the law was expedited due to the urgent nature of the issues it sets out to deal with.”

Urgent? How urgent?

If the re-introduction of the law was urgent, why is it that the entire police force had not been activated with the idea of turning every stone upside down – pardon the pun – to ensure that this joker named ‘O le Palemia’ whom it seems everyone is afraid of, is found and be thrown in jail where he rightly belongs?

Now wait.

Joining the circus
We’ve got the Minister of Justice and the Courts Administration, Fa’aolesa Katopau Ainuu, joining the circus.

As the joker who introduced the Criminal Libel Bill in Parliament, he said: “The law is not new. This amendment is in relation to defamation.”

He went on to explain: “Currently, there is a clause to have this case before the Court for a civil claim. The amendment today is to add on the criminal prosecution for defamation.”

“People have asked as to why we need to reinstate the criminal libel when the matter can be dealt with through civil.”

Fa’aolesa also said: “In a civil claim, there is a need for lawyers to represent your case and most of our people cannot afford a lawyer; whereas (with) Criminal Libel the matter can be prosecuted by the police and you would not need a lawyer.”

Now isn’t that wonderful!

Is he saying that if you were ‘O le Palemia’, you could go on and accuse Samoa’s political leaders of all sorts of alleged criminal activities including being corrupt and fraudulent, and you would still not be prosecuted for doing so by the police?

Legal opinions
According to the Minister of Justice Fa’aolesa, the Law of Criminal Libel was “abolished back in 2013 based on legal opinions of some lawyers.”

“However, the government sees the need to reinstate this law following requests by members of the public who want to pursue cases before the court, but cannot afford a legal counsel.”

He said: “The Bill amends the Crimes Act 2013 with introduction of a new Part 9A for crimes against a person’s reputation.”

“This Part is ‘False statement causing harm to a person’s reputation.”

“The rationale for introducing the offence is to address harm done to a person’s reputation by another person who publishes false information about that person.”

“This is similar to defamatory libel and although civil proceedings for defamation are available to the public, the reality is, not all Samoans have access to these proceedings as not all are able to afford legal services required for such proceedings.”

He’s probably right.

Criminal complaint
Later still, on 8 May 2008, the Attorney General of the government of American Samoa, Fepulea’i Authur Ripley, filed a claim in the District Court of American Samoa naming Katopau Ainu’u, as the defendant in a criminal complaint.

Katopau was accused of having committed two crimes, one of Embezzlement and the other of Criminal Fraud. On the charge of Embezzlement, court documents showed that “on 3 November 2006, the Defendant knowingly misappropriated funds which had been entrusted to him in violation of ASCA 46.4104, a class C felony punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years, a fine of up to double the amount gained by the crime, or both.”

On the charge of Criminal Fraud, court documents showed that “on 3 November 2006, the Defendant knowingly and wilfully obtained money by the use of a scheme to defraud by false pretences.”

To that extent, the Defendant agreed to represent the victims(s) as an attorney, in a matai case; on that day, Defendant took payment from victim(s) as payment to represent victim(s) in a count case, while at the same time knowing that the Defendant was moving off-shore …”

Now 10 years later, in March 2016, Samoa held its general elections and the defendant, Katopau Ainu’u, who was now holding the matai title of Fa’aolesa, ran for Parliament and he was elected.

What’s undisputed though is that Fa’aolesa Katopau Ainu’u had worked as a lawyer in American Samoa at one point in time. Later when he moved to Samoa, he entered Parliament and became the Minister of Justice.

Ghosts of the past
Later, when Prime Minister Tuilapea chose his cabinet, he named Fa’aolesa the Minister of Justice, and shortly afterwards the ghosts of the past, having stirred into life, emerged to give both Fa’aolesa and Tuilaepa a hard time.

Asked for a comment on the reports, Tuilaepa said he was “shocked” by them. “I have spoken with the Minister (concerned) who is (also) shocked (by them).”

Tuilaepa revealed that Fa’aolesa “has contacted his lawyer in American Samoa who is also shocked about it, and (from what he’s been told) the matter had been resolved a long time ago but it has been dug up again.”

Shocked?

The editorial that was published in the Samoa Observer at the time was titled: Prime Minister Tuilaepa’s gift from American Samoa.

What is the meaning of the word “shock” these two are talking about here? Please don’t ask me to try and explain anything.

All I can say is that when this newspaper asked Fa’aolesa for a comment, he said he was unaware about the warrant; he then asked for a copy so that he could look at it before he could comment.

Copies of the “warrant” were sent to him but by press time that night he had not responded.

Investigation
Over there in American Samoa at the time, the current Attorney-General, Talauega Eleasalo Ale, said his office was conducting an investigation into the matter.

“This is something that happened before I came into office,” he said. “(We) are definitely looking into it.”

He also said all he knew was that “the matter is still valid and apparently it’s still in the books of the Court, and therefore it is still outstanding.”

“It’s a matter that’s up to the law enforcement and the Police to enforce if the person is in our jurisdiction.”

“(As for) the background and reasons for the warrant, those facts are still out there. I don’t know what happened.”

He explained: “The warrant is valid and if he is in American Samoan jurisdiction he can be arrested by the Police in pursuant to the Court’s warrant.”

Here in Samoa on the other hand, it appears that the embattled Minister of Justice, Courts and Administration, Fa’aolesa Katopau Ainu’u, is a worried man.

He is apparently seeking to quash the outstanding warrant of arrest made against him in American Samoa with the aid of his American Samoan lawyer, he revealed in a telephone interview.

“My lawyer will make a motion to quash the warrant,” he said. “The delay is because they are trying to find the affidavit to support the warrant.”

“There was nothing at the Attorney-General’s office and they are also looking for a copy from the Court.”

Asked if he was going to American Samoa when the matter would be heard in Court, Fa’aolesa said no. “It’s being done by my lawyer,” he said.

“Once I get the results I’ll call you for my official response. In the meantime, I cannot say anything more that might compromise my lawyer’s work.”

No call
To date, Fa’aolesa has not called.

As for Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, is it possible that he would one day soon, turn his back on his gift, from American Samoa.

Indeed, can the law of Criminal Libel be used to prosecute government officials, who are alleged to have committed fraud and embezzlement, in corrupt ridden Samoa?

Just a thought!

Have a peaceful Sunday Samoa. God bless!

Editorial republished from the Samoa Observer via Pacific Media Watch.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz