In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that this law does not contravene the provisions of Section 46 which provides for freedom of expression.

The decision is a serious warning to offending users of social media and the internet that they might find themselves with fines of up to K1 million (NZ$430,000), or jail terms of between 15 and 25 years.

A Supreme Court panel comprising Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and Justices Les Gavara-Nanu, David Cannings, Kingsley Allen David and Derek Hartshorn made this determination in Waigani on Friday.

The constitutional reference was made by National Court judge Teresa Berrigan during the trial of Kila Aoneka Wari, who was charged with criminal defamation under section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act 2016.

Judge Berrigan then referred for Supreme Court interpretation on whether Section 21 contravened the Freedom of Expression provision of the National Constitution.

Reading the judgment on behalf of his fellow judges, Sir Gibbs said: “We (Supreme Court) consider there is a clear and present danger to public safety, public order and public welfare if publication of defamatory material by use of electronic systems or devices were allowed to be made without restriction, including by criminal sanction.”

Sir Gibbs said the court had determined that the regulation and restriction of the exercises of the right to freedom of expression imposed by section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code is “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society having a proper respect for the rights and dignity of mankind.”

‘Necessary’ for public safety
Sir Gibbs said the court was satisfied that the first, second and third interveners had discharged the burden in showing that section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code complied with the three requirements of section 38 (1) of the Constitution in that:

•  FIRST, it has been made and certified in accordance with section 38 (2) of the Constitution.
•  SECONDLY, it restricts the exercise of the right to freedom and expression and publication that is “necessary” for the purpose of giving effect to the public interest in public safety, public order and public welfare; and
•  THIRDLY, it is a law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society having a proper respect to the rights and dignity of mankind.

“We conclude that no, section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act is not invalid. Although it (Cybercrime Code Act) restricts the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and publication in section 46 of the Constitution it is a law that complies with Section 38 of the Constitution and the restriction it imposes is permissible under section 46 (1) (C) of the Constitution.

The questions that Justice Berrigan referred to the Supreme Court were:

•  DOES section 21(2) of the cybercrime Code Act regulate or restrict the right of freedom of expression and publication under section 46 of the Constitution?
•  IF yes to question 1, does section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act comply with section 38 of the Constitution?
•  IS section 21(20 of the Cybercrime Code Act) invalid for being inconsistent with section 46 of the Constitution?

The court answered yes to questions and one and two and answered no to question three.

The court also ordered that each intervener will bear their own costs.

Wari is the fourth intervener in the proceedings.

Others are Attorney-General Pila Niningi (first intervener), acting public prosecutor Raphael Luman (second intervener), Public Solicitor Leslie Mamu (third intervener).

Section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Code Act is the law on defamatory publication.

It makes any defamatory publication using any electronic device as an offence with a penalty of K25,000 to K1 million fine, or imprisonment not exceeding 15 to 25 years.

Boura Goru Kila is a reporter for PNG’s The National. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The #HoldTheLine Coalition has urged President Marcos of the Philippines to end persecution of journalists and independent media by dropping all charges against Nobel Peace Prize co-laureate Maria Ressa and her co-accused.

This week, the Philippine Court of Appeals rejected Ressa’s motion for a reconsideration of her 2020 conviction on a trumped-up charge of criminal cyber libel.

This means that after a two-year struggle to overturn her conviction, all that stands between Ressa’s freedom and a lengthy prison sentence is a final appeal to the Supreme Court, and the government’s political will.

“We call on President Marcos to show the world that he rejects the Duterte-era persecution and prosecution of journalists and independent media by immediately withdrawing all charges and cases against Ressa, her co-accused, and her Manila-based news outlet Rappler,” the #HoldTheLine Coalition steering committee said on behalf of more than 80 international organisations — including Reporters Without Borders — joining forces to defend Ressa and support independent media in the Philippines.

“President Marcos should begin by ending his government’s opposition to Ressa’s appeal against her conviction on spurious criminal cyber libel charges, which were pursued and prosecuted by the State despite the Philippine Supreme Court’s warning that the country’s criminalisation of libel is ‘doubtful’.”

There have been 23 individual cases opened by the state against Maria Ressa, Rappler and its employees since 2018.

The criminal cyber libel case is one of seven ongoing cases implicating Ressa. If she is successfully prosecuted in all cases, she theoretically faces up to 100 years in jail.

The criminal cyber libel conviction is the most urgent, with an increased sentence of up to six years and eight months handed down by the Philippine Court of Appeal in July 2022.

Ressa now has just two weeks to file a final appeal to the Philippine Supreme Court, which could then swiftly issue a written verdict, resulting in the enforcement of her prison sentence.

Concurrently, Rappler is also the subject of a shutdown order pursued by the Duterte administration.

— Julie Posetti (ICFJ), Rebecca Vincent (RSF), and Gypsy Guillén Kaiser (CPJ) on behalf of the #HoldTheLine 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. Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Philippines Court of Appeals has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. over their cyber libel case.

In a 16-page decision dated October 10, the court’s fourth division denied the appeal.

Associate Justices Roberto Quiroz, Ramon Bato Jr., and Germano Francisco Legaspi signed the ruling. They were the same justices who signed the court decision, which earlier affirmed the conviction of Ressa and Santos.

According to the court, the arguments raised by Ressa and Santos were already resolved.

“A careful and meticulous review of the motion for reconsideration reveals that the matters raised by the accused-appellants had already been exhaustively resolved and discussed in the assailed Decision,” the court said.

The court also claimed Ressa’s and Santos’ conviction is not meant to curtail freedom of speech.

“In conclusion, it [is] worthy and relevant to point out that the conviction of the accused-appellants for the crime of cyberlibel punishable under the Cybercrime Law is not geared towards the curtailment of the freedom of speech, or to produce an unseemingly chilling effect on the users of cyberspace that would possibly hinder free speech.”

‘Safeguard’ for free speech
On the contrary, the court said, the purpose of the law is to “safeguard the right of free speech, and to curb, if not totally prevent, the reckless and unlawful use of the computer systems as a means of committing the traditional criminal offences…”

In a statement, Nobel Peace laureate Ressa said she was “disappointed” but not surprised by the ruling.

Rappler’s video report on YouTube.

“The ongoing campaign of harassment and intimidation against me and Rappler continues, and the Philippines legal system is not doing enough to stop it. I am disappointed by today’s ruling but sadly not surprised,” Ressa said.

“This is a reminder of the importance of independent journalism holding power to account. Despite these sustained attacks from all sides, we continue to focus on what we do best — journalism.”

Santos, in a separate statement, said he still believed that the rule of law would prevail.

“The [Appeal Court’s] decision to deny our motion is not surprising, but it’s disheartening nevertheless. As we elevate our case to the SC, our fight against intimidation and suppression of freedom continues. We still believe that the rule of law will prevail.”

Theodore “Ted” Te, Rappler’s lawyer and former Supreme Court spokesperson, said they would now ask the Supreme Court to review and reverse Ressa’s conviction.

“The CA decision denying the MFR [motion for reconsideration] is disappointing. It ignored basic principles of constitutional and criminal law as well as the evidence presented. Maria and Rey will elevate these issues to the SC and we will ask the SC to review the decision and to reverse the decision,” Te said in a statement.

The decision
The Appeal Court also explained its findings on the arguments based on:

• Applications of the provisions of cyber libel under the cybercrime law
• Subject article should have been classified as qualifiedly privileged” in relation to Wilfredo Keng as a public figure

On the validity of the cybercrime law, the court cited a ruling which, according to them, decided the constitutionality of the law.

“We find it unnecessary to dwell on the issue raised by accused-appellants since the Supreme Court, in Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., et al., v. The Secretary of Justice, et al. (Disini Case), 5 had already ruled on its validity and constitutionality, with finality.”

The court also reiterated that the story in question was republished. The court said the argument that ex-post facto was applied on the theory that the correction of one letter is too unsubstantial and cannot be considered a republication is “unavailing.”

“As settled, the determination of republication is not hinged on whether the corrections made therein were substantial or not, as what matters is that the very exact libelous article was again published on a later date,” the appeals court said.

On the increase of penalty, the CA said the argument that Wilberto Tolentino v. People has no doctrinal value and cannot be used as a binding precedent as it was “an unsigned resolution, is misplaced.”

That case said the “prescriptive period for the crime of cyber libel is 15 years.”

Traditional, online publications
The appeals court also highlighted the difference between traditional and online publications: “As it is, in the instance of libel through traditional publication, the libelous article is only released and circulated once – which is on the day when it was published.”

Such was not the case for an online publication, the court said, where “the commission of such offence is continuous since such article remains therein in perpetuity unless taken down from all online platforms where it was published…”

On the argument about Keng, the CA said it was insufficient to consider him a public figure: “As previously settled, the claim that Wilfredo Keng is a renowned businessman, who was connected to several companies, is insufficient to classify him as a public figure.”

The term “public figure” in relation to libel refers more to a celebrity, it said, citing the Ciriaco “Boy” Guingguing v. Honorable Court of Appeals decision. The decision said a public figure is “anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon him as a person.”

It also cited the Supreme Court decision on Alfonso Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, et al., which resolved the argument whether a businessman can be considered a public figure. The court said that being a known businessman did not make Keng a public figure who had attained a position that gave the public “legitimate interest in his affairs and character.”

There was no proof, too, that “he voluntarily thrusted himself to the forefront of the particular public controversies that were raised in the defamatory article,” the CA added.

In 2020, Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 convicted Ressa and Santos over cyber libel charges filed by Keng. The case tested the 8-year-old Philippine cybercrime law.

The Manila court interpreted the cyber libel law as having a 12-year proscription period, as opposed to only a year. The lower court also decided that republication was a separate offence.

Aside from affirming the Manila court’s ruling, the CA also imposed a longer prison sentence on Ressa and Santos, originally set for six months and one day as minimum to six years as maximum.

The appeals court added eight months and 20 days to the maximum imprisonment penalty.

Jairo Bolledo is a Rappler journalist. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Former Philippines vice-presidential candidate and Laban ng Masa chairperson Walden Bello has been arrested for two counts of alleged cyber libel by the police.

Bello, 76, is a globally renowned environmental and social justice activist and academic.

Bello’s arrest yesterday was confirmed by his executive secretary and Laban ng Masa spokesperson Leomar Doctolero.

The former VP candidate was brought to the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) Station 8 in Project 4, Quezon City.

“Walden has just been arrested for cyber libel by officers of the QCPD. He is currently being taken to QC Police Station 8, P. Tuazon,” Doctolero said.

It was Davao City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 10 Judge Retrina Espe Fuentes who issued the arrest warrant yesterday. Bello’s counsels said they will move for the suspension of proceedings at RTC 10 after Bello posts bail.

Two counts of cyber libel
Bello faces two counts of cyber libel for which bail has been set at P48,000 (NZ$4000) each.

Police Lieutenant-Colonel Gilmore Wasin confirmed Bello’s arrest to Rappler. He added Bello would be transferred to Camp Karingal in Quezon City, QCPD’s headquarters.

Doctolero said they had been anticipating the arrest because Bello had already been indicted for the cases last month.

“We have been anticipating the arrest warrant because of the indictment of the Davao Prosecutor. It’s a bailable offence and counsel is on the way to assist him.”

Bello’s camp filed a motion for reconsideration before the Davao prosecutor’s office but it was denied, Doctolero explained.

“The resolution for his indictment was released last June 9. We filed for a motion for reconsideration with the Prosecutors’ Office which was subsequently denied.”

‘Dangerous precedent’

Under the Philippine laws, cyber libel is a bailable offence. Based on the guidelines for bail for cybercrime offences, the bail for cyber libel is typically set at P10,000 (NZ$790).

In a message to reporters, Leody de Guzman’s team said the ex-presidential candidate and Bello’s running mate was headed to QCPD Station 8 to show support for Bello.

At the height of the campaign period early this year, Jefry Tupas, Vice-President Sara Duterte’s former information officer, filed a cyber libel complaint against Bello.

She is seeking P10 million (NZ$790,000) in damages after Bello allegedly accused her on social media of being a drug addict and dealer.

Bello earlier labeled Tupas’ act as “clearly a politically-motivated move”.

In a petition for review filed on July 29, Bello’s camp argued that the position of Tupas in government “is very relevant” as the Facebook post would not have highlighted the drug raid if it weren’t for her being a public official.

Infringement on free speech
The prosecutor’s dismissal of their argument that the post merely poses a question sets “a dangerous precedent,” the petition also pointed out.

“Just imagine the severe infringement on free speech that would ensue if our jurisdiction would limit what questions people can ask!” the petition said.

Bello’s camp also argued that the post was written by his communications team, not by the former vice-presidential candidate himself, and that there is still no proof that he personally published it on Facebook.

“[Bello] does not even have administrator or moderator status in the said Facebook page,” it said.

Pacific Media Watch reports: Walden Bello posted this on his Facebook page from detention at Camp Karingal:

Seventy seven years ago today, Aug 9, 1945, the second atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, three days after the first blasted Hiroshima. Up to 80,000 people were killed in an act of genocide that had absolutely no military value and merely served to warn the Soviet Union of the US’ capacity to blast it to bits. The world must never forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, especially now that the war in the Ukraine drags on, with the constant possibility of uncontrolled escalation, and Washington provokes China on Taiwan.

By Jairo Bolledo is a Rappler journalist. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

The #HoldTheLine (#HTL) Coalition has welcomed the dismissal of a cyber-libel charge against Rappler CEO and founder Maria Ressa in the Philippines — the second “spurious” charge against Ressa to be dropped in just two months, says Reporters Without Borders.

The #HTL coalition calls for all remaining charges to be immediately dropped and the endless pressure against Ressa and Rappler to be ceased.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

North Fly MP James Donald yesterday made an appearance in Papua New Guinea’s Waigani Committal Court to face cyber crime charges for allegedly publishing defamatory materials against a lawyer and the management team of OK Tedi River Development Foundation.

Magistrate Garry Unjo, reading the MP’s charges, said Donald, from Gasuke village in North Fly district in Western Province, had allegedly published defamatory materials against Young and Williams principal lawyer Greg Sheppard and Ok Tedi River Development Foundation (OTRDL) chairman Steven Bagari, and Samson Jubi.

Donald was charged with a count each of attempting to pervert the court of justice, and publishing defamatory materials.

Police alleged that Donald had posted a false and misleading defamatory article titled “Where is the money?” on his personal Facebook page on July 26, alleging that Sheppard and Bagari had misappropriated more than K250 million ($110 million) in funds that belonged to the Ok Tedi landowners.

Other articles also signed and approved for release by him were allegedly published in the two daily newspapers, the PNG Post-Courier and The National.

According to the police summary of facts, Donald had allegedly posted defamatory materials against Sheppard, Bagari and Jubi intentionally to tarnish the reputation of the three men without factual evidence to support his claims on Facebook.

Police further alleged that Donald’s defamatory publications were made despite him knowing there was a writ of summons, filed by Young and Williams Lawyers on behalf of OTFRDL in the High Court of Singapore (HC/S628/2020 between OTFRDL and others, Vs James Donald).

His alleged accomplice, Phillip Baindridge, is the chairman of PNG Sustainable Development Progamme (PNGSDP).

The summons sought to retrieve funds worth more than K250 million (NZ$110 million) back to PNG and put into the control of foundation and the people affected.

Trevor Wahune is a University of Papua New Guinea journalism graduate and reporter on the OPNG Post-Courier.

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

Sixty press freedom groups and civil society organisations, journalism institutions, filmmakers, and other supporters have formed a coalition in support of Maria Ressa and independent media in the Philippines, united around the call to #HoldTheLine.

Today the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) announced the launch of the #HoldTheLine campaign in support of journalist Ressa and independent media under attack in the Philippines.

Acting in coordination with Ressa and her legal team, representatives from the three groups form the steering committee, working alongside dozens of partners on the global campaign and reporting initiatives.

READ MORE: Rappler challenges president’s ‘media powers’ in democracy fight back

The campaign takes its name from Ressa’s commitment to “hold the line” in response to sustained state harassment and prolific online violence.

An internationally celebrated Filipino-American journalist, Ressa is best known for two decades covering South East Asia for CNN and founding the multi-award winning Philippines news website Rappler.

On 15 June 2020, she was convicted of “cyber-libel,” alongside former Rappler colleague Reynaldo Santos Jr – a criminal charge for which they face up to six years in prison.

The conviction relates to a story about corruption from 2012 – before the law was even enacted – and hung on the correction of a typo.

Pair may be imprisoned
Ressa and Santos both posted bail, but could be imprisoned if the case is not overturned on appeal.

Ressa is facing at least six other cases and charges. Guilty verdicts in all of them could result in her spending nearly a century in jail.

Rappler is also implicated in most of these cases, with several involving criminal charges related to libel, foreign ownership, and taxes.

The convictions are the latest offence in the Duterte government’s wider campaign to stifle independent reporting, including the recent shutdown of the main national broadcaster ABS-CBN.

“I am moved by the incredible outpouring of support we’ve received from around the globe for our campaign to #HoldTheLine against tyranny – even as President Duterte continues his public attacks on me, the legal harassment escalates, and the state-licensed and Facebook-fuelled online violence rages on,” Ressa said.

“We can’t stay silent because silence is consent. We need to be outraged, to fight back with journalism. If we don’t use our rights, we will lose them. Please stand with us!”

What you can do
Those interested in showing support and helping to #HoldTheLine can take two immediate steps in the run-up to Ressa’s next hearing scheduled on July 22:

1. Join the #HoldTheLine coalition by getting in touch via the contacts below.
2. Sign and share this petition calling for the Philippine government to drop all charges and cases against Ressa, Santos and Rappler, and end pressure on independent media in the Philippines.

The 60 founding members of the #HoldTheLine Coalition are:

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which form the steering committee; African Media Initiative; Association for International Broadcasting (AIB); Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom; Amnesty International; ARTICLE 19; Association of Caribbean Media Workers; Canadian Journalism Forum on Violence and Trauma; Centre for Freedom of the Media (CFOM); Centre for Law and Democracy; CineDiaz; The Coalition For Women In Journalism; Community Media Forum Europe (CMFE); DART Asia Pacific; Dart Center; Doc Society; English PEN; European Journalism Centre; First Look Media; Free Press Unlimited; Global Alliance on Media and Gender (GAMAG); Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD); Global Voices;  Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University; Index on Censorship; Institute for Regional Media and Information (IRMI); International Media Support (IMS); International Association of Women in Radio  and Television (IAWRT); International News Safety Institute (INSI); International Press Institute (IPI); International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF); James W. Foley Legacy Foundation; Judith Neilson Institute; Justice for Journalists Foundation; Media Association for Peace (MAP); Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF); Namibia Media Trust (NMT); National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP); Open Society Foundations (OSF); Pacific Media Centre (PMC), Pakistan Press Foundation; Panos Institute Southern Africa; PEN America; Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ); Press Freedom Defence Fund; Project Syndicate; Public Media Alliance; Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting; Rappler; Rory Peck Trust; Rural Media Network Pakistan; South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF); Storyhunter; The Signals Network; Tanzania Media Practitioners Association; Union of Journalists in Finland; World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA); and World Editors Forum.

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

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

Rappler as a company was declared to have no liability.

As of writing, both journalists are posting bail.

READ MORE: TIMELINE: Rappler’s cyber libel case

Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 ruled that only Ressa and Santos were guilty of cyber libel charges.

The court sentenced Ressa and Santos to 6 months and 1 day to up to 6 years in jail over charges filed by businessman Wilfredo Keng in a case that tested the 8-year-old Philippine Cybercrime Law.

Ressa and Santos will not have to go to jail because the conviction can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Ressa and Santos are entitled to post-conviction bail while they exhaust legal remedies in higher courts.

Verdict handed down in person
The verdict was handed down in person during the coronavirus pandemic, when the small courtroom of Branch 46 accommodated only the defendants, the complainant, one lawyer from each of the firms representing them, and three reporters.

Keng earlier demanded P50 million in damages from the embattled news organisation, which is also facing a shutdown order from the government over its Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs).

Ressa faces 7 other charges before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), and Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC), stemming from the mother case over the company’s PDRs, which the Court of Appeals (CA) has ruled to be already cured.

The CA has remanded the shutdown order to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for review.

Ressa’s and Santos’ cyber libel case stemmed from the latter’s May 2012 article on the late former Chief Justice Renato Corona’s links to businessmen, including Keng.

Keng disputed parts of the article that quoted an intelligence report linking him to drugs and human trafficking.

Keng filed the complaint in 2017 or 5 years later, beyond the more typical one-year prescription period for libel under the Revised Penal Code. But because the cybercrime law is silent on the prescription period for cyber libel, the Department of Justice found an obscure law – Republic Act 3326 – to extend libel’s prescription period from one year to 12 years.

There was also a question of whether the cybercrime law could apply because it was enacted into law only in September 2012, or four months after the publication of the article.

But the DOJ ruled that because the article reflected updates at a later date when the cybercrime law was already enacted, the law would apply. The updates corrected previously missed typographical errors.

The Pacific Media Centre republishes Rappler articles with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

The Timor-Leste Press Union has protested in front of the Philippine Embassy in the capital Dili in solidarity with indicted Journalist Maria Ressa over her “persecution” and in defence of freedom of the press.

Rappler CEO and editor Maria Ressa is known and respected for her work as a journalist in bringing the plight of the suffering people of Timor-Leste under a quarter century of Indonesian occupation prior to renewed independence in 1999.

The Timorese journalist protest was broadcast by the public broadcaster RTTL.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer, one of the leading Philippine national dailies, reported today that Ressa had accused President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration of acting like a dictatorship and using the law as a weapon to muzzle dissent.

READ MORE: Rappler’s Maria Ressa sees threat to democracy

“What we’re seeing … is a level of impunity that I frankly haven’t seen, and I’ve been a journalist for more than 30 some odd years,” Ressa said after posting bail in a Manila court on Thursday.

-Partners-

Ressa, who was selected by Time magazine as one of its Persons of the Year last year, is the head of Rappler Inc., which has aggressively covered Duterte’s administration.

Rappler publisher Maria Ressa speaking at a media conference after her release on bail in Manila. Image: Philippine Daily Inquirer

She was arrested Wednesday over a libel complaint from a businessman. Duterte’s government claimed the arrest was a normal step in response to the complaint and had nothing to do with press freedom.

Universities condemn arrest
University leaders and student groups in the Philippines have also condemned the arrest of Ressa, saying schools must defend the truth and press freedom, reports Rappler.

Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) president Father Ramon Jose Villarin and De La Salle Philippines president Brother Armin Luistro urged the universities’ communities to speak out and defend democracy.

“The university shares Maria’s challenge to shine the light on power and be brave in witnessing to the truth. Veritas liberabit vos (The truth will set you free),” Villarin said.

“Lies and false promises of unbridled power, when met with silence, will only make us a nation of slaves,” he added.

Luistro urged Lasallians to “vote with their feet” in the upcoming 2019 elections and make their voices heard to defend press freedom.

Ressa was arrested in connection with a cyber libel case filed by the Justice Department.

The University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman Student Council and ADMU publication The Guidon denounced the arrest, saying students would continue to hold the line with Ressa and Rappler.

‘Make our voices heard’
Here are the statements of support from various schools:

Brother Armin Luistro FSC, president of De La Salle Philippines:

“Let’s give our all out support as Lasallians to Rappler. Let’s defend press freedom. Let’s make our voices heard. Let’s vote with our feet and stand with Maria Ressa!”

Father Jose Ramon Villarin SJ, president of Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU):

“In my statement of 13 October 2017, I had occasion to ‘call on everyone in the community to defend our democratic institutions” and to state that “[t]his call to defend our democratic institutions is not even a matter of political partisanship or persuasion. It is a call that is borne out of our conviction about what is right and just and truly democratic.’

“While such pronouncements then pertained to government institutions in particular, the same should be said with regard to freedom of speech, of expression and of the press. No less than the Philippine Constitution recognises ‘the vital role of communication and information in nation-building’ (Constitution, Art. II. Sec. 24) and ‘the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press’ (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 4).

“There are several rights and freedoms necessary for a democratic society to function. The right to life, the right to due process, the sweet freedoms of speech and of the press – all of these were once considered sacred, inviolable. But as of late these have been called into question; mocked, attacked, degraded.

“Rappler, and its brave leader Maria Ressa, have consistently held the line against the erosion of these liberties. It is journalists like her who keep us all informed about the state of our nation, covering different areas of our national life, contributing immeasurably to the wealth and value of our country.

“Too often these days, it is they who wage daily battles against fake news, expose corruption and bring to light illegal practices and wrongdoing by those who lead us.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

The Paris-based global media advocacy group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned yesterday’s arrest of Maria Ressa, editor of the independent Manila-based news website Rappler, on a “cyber libel” (defamation) charge.

It is referring the Philippine government’s “repeated persecution” of this journalist and her website to the United Nations Secretary-General.

Chosen as one of Time Magazine’s “persons of the year” in 2018, Ressa was spending last night in detention after being arrested at Rappler headquarters by agents from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) armed with an arrest warrant issued on the basis of online defamation case filed last week.

READ MORE: Rappler CEO Maria Ressa arrested for ‘cyber libel’

“It seems that her arrest was left until the end of the afternoon with the deliberate aim of keeping her in detention overnight,” RSF said.

According to her colleagues, the judge said there was no time to handle the bail request until today.

-Partners-

The Philippine Justice Department filed the case against Ressa and Rappler on February 6 over an article published in 2012 about alleged ties between a Philippine businessmen and the then president of the country’s Supreme Court.

The charges, which carry a possible 12-year jail sentence, were brought under a cyber crime law that had not yet taken effect when the article was published.

‘No place in prison’
“Maria Ressa has no place in prison and the judicial persecution to which she is being subjected is becoming increasingly unacceptable,” RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said.

“Digging up an old case that was dismissed in February 2018 is absolutely absurd and confirms that this is not justice but an attempt to gag a media outlet and editor recognised internationally for their professionalism and independence.”

Deloire added: “We are asking the UN secretary-general to intercede as quickly as possible to end this harassment. At the same time, we ask the court that handles this case to dismiss all the charges against Maria Ressa and Rappler.”

This is the sixth charge to be brought against Ressa in more than a year of systematic judicial harassment.

Four charges of tax evasion and failing to file income tax returns were brought against Rappler and Ressa last November. A fifth charge, described by RSF as “completely spurious”, was brought in December.

Ressa is one of the 25 members of an international panel created at RSF’s initiative last year that drafted an international Declaration on Information and Democracy.

On the basis of the declaration, the leaders of 12 democratic countries launched a political process on November 11 aimed at providing democratic guarantees for news and information and freedom of opinion.

Media freedom awards
As well as being one of Time Magazine’s “persons of the year,” Ressa also received the 2018 Press Freedom Award from the Committee to Protect Journalists and has become a symbol of the Philippine media’s fight against intimidation by President Rodrigo Duterte.

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

Press freedom groups around the world, including New Zealand’s Pacific Media Centre/Pacific Media Watch, condemned the persecution, with Pen America saying the arrest showed the Duterte government was “desperate” to silence critics.

“Maria Ressa, along with her colleagues at Rappler, has fearlessly exposed the abuses of the Duterte government, even in the face of relentless harassment,” Pen said.

“By arresting her on these absurd and baseless charges, concerning an article published 7 years ago and prior to the enactment of the very law under which she is being charged, the Philippines government has exposed how desperate it is to silence critics and stamp out independent journalism in the country.

“We call on the Duterte government to immediately drop these charges and release Ressa. Investigative journalism is not a crime.”

#Journalismisnotacrime

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz