IT’S ABOUT breaking the law, specifically Republic Act 10175’s Chapter 3, Section 4C, No. 4 which renders unlawful or prohibited acts of libel those mentioned under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, if such acts are committed through a computer system or any other similar means that may be devised.
Under Article 355 of the RPC, the crime of libel is committed when a person makes, against another, a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
And that’s what happened to a certain Maria Ressa lately, the Executive Editor and Chief Executive Officer of a social media blog site called Rappler that claims to be an online news site.
Excerpts from a June 15, 2020 article on GMA News:
Court convicts Maria Ressa, ex-Rappler researcher of cyber libel
Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and a former researcher were convicted of cyber libel charges in the first court decision on a string of criminal cases filed against the online news site and its leader.
The Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46 found Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. guilty of cyber libel on Monday and sentenced them to six months and one day to up to six years in jail.
The two remain free after being granted post-conviction bail.
The court likewise ordered Ressa and Santos “jointly and severally” to pay businessman Wilfredo Keng, the private complainant, P200,000 in moral damages and P200,000 in exemplary damages.
In a final note on the decision, Judge Montesa said “there is no curtailment of the right to freedom of speech and of the press.”
“Each person, journalist or not, has that constitutionally guaranteed right to freely express, write and make known his opinion. But with the highest ideals in mind what society expects is a responsible free press. It is in acting responsibly that freedom is given its true meaning,” she added.
The judge said free speech and press freedom “cannot and should not be used as a shield against accountability.”
Maria Ressa, you do not define my rights as a journalist. Libel is just “another day” in the office for genuine journalists. It is exactly because of pretenders and purveyors of “fake news” like you that media has sunk this low.
Of course you don’t deserve all the accolades as we should also give credit to the gullible social-climbing trendy idiots that you use to further your agenda.
You are not even a true journalist in the real sense of the word. Perhaps you were before you reinvented yourself as the “pop star” of blogging.
At best you are just a glorified blogger, no more different than say John Castigador’s “At the Bat of an Eyelash”. Both your preferred medium is social media. The clue there is the word “social”, not meant to be taken seriously, just meant to be enjoyed for entertainment or a few laughs.
Really, all you had was just one libel case and conviction and you want the world to stop turning for you? It does not work that way. Allow me to rub salt; when you wake up tomorrow, Rodrigo Duterte is still President of the Republic.
I remember the founder of Panay News, the late Danny Fajardo. The man had a string of libel cases but he never cried “assault on press freedom”. He stood his ground, fought them all in court and had most of them dismissed. Now that’s a true journalist worth emulating.
Now for someone who claims to be a “crusading journalist”, Maria Ressa tried to escape accountability and threw her “Rappletes” under the bus using what she thought was a “clever ruse”:
In her 37-page ruling, Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa said:
To the mind of the Court, Rappler’s scheme of not using the term “editor-in-chief” in its organizational structure is a clever ruse to avoid liability of the officers of a news organization who can be held responsible for libel under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to RA 10175. They used the nomenclature “executive editor” instead, although clearly the nature of the functions she discharges is still that of an editor as contemplated by law.
In addition, the defense theory that Accused Ressa has no participation is untenable. It should be stressed that neither the publisher nor the editor can disclaim liability for libelous articles that appear on their paper by simply saying that they had no participation in the preparation of the same with her other role as Rappler CEO, “Ressa clearly has the absolute management responsibility over Rappler Inc.”
“It is not a matter of whether she was actually involved in preparing or editing the subject article, because the law simply states that she, as editor and business manager, is liable ‘AS IF’ she was the author, in accordance with Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to RA 10175.
Assault on press freedom, my foot!/PN
