Scribd
Upload
65 views2 pages

Research On The Cyberlibel Case of Ms. Ressa vs. Keng

This document summarizes the key details of the cyberlibel case against Maria Ressa and her former employee. It discusses that (1) the court ruled the 12-year prescriptive period for cyberlibel applied, not the 1-year period for ordinary libel. (2) The court found Ressa and her employee guilty because the article tarnished someone's reputation without evidence and was republished within the new Cybercrime Law's scope. (3) Maria Ressa's experience shows the importance of only publishing fact-checked articles and that sympathy doesn't absolve one of accountability for rule violations.

Uploaded by

Jet Jet
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
65 views2 pages

Research On The Cyberlibel Case of Ms. Ressa vs. Keng

This document summarizes the key details of the cyberlibel case against Maria Ressa and her former employee. It discusses that (1) the court ruled the 12-year prescriptive period for cyberlibel applied, not the 1-year period for ordinary libel. (2) The court found Ressa and her employee guilty because the article tarnished someone's reputation without evidence and was republished within the new Cybercrime Law's scope. (3) Maria Ressa's experience shows the importance of only publishing fact-checked articles and that sympathy doesn't absolve one of accountability for rule violations.

Uploaded by

Jet Jet
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Research on the Cyberlibel Case of Ms. Ressa vs.

Keng
By: Jhesmin Amahit
AB-3B

1. Did it violate the prescriptive period for a libel complaint?

No, it did not violate the prescriptive period for a libel complaint. Under Article
90 of the Revised Penal Code, libel can be filed one year from the date the alleged
libelous article was published. But the court ruled that the prescription period for cyber
libel is within 12 years as it is “separate and distinct” from the ordinary libel under the
RPC. Deeming cyber libel to be its offense under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,
a special law, the court applied the 12-year prescriptive period provided for special law
offenses under Act No. 3326 (Nonato, 2020). And yes the said article is published May
29, 2012, four months earlier than Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012 – a law enacted several months later on Sept. 12, 2012. But Rappler re-published
the same article correcting the word “evation” to “evasion” on February 9, 2014 (Santos,
2020).

2. What is the basis of the court's decision finding Ms. Ressa and her former employee
guilty for Cyber libel?

First, the article claimed that Keng was a "smuggler, involved in human
trafficking and a murderer" all meant to tarnish Corona's standing for being chummy
(using a borrowed SUV) with such a controversial person.
Second, Keng and his lawyers demanded that Rappler take out the article. Or, at
the very least, correct it. He also presented documents proving that he was never been
charged of the crimes said on the article. But there was no article published clearing his
name from the allegations.
Third, that same article, save for the reported deletion of an alleged typographical
error, was re-published in 2014 well within the CyberCrime Protection Act of 2012
signed by then President Aquino which carried more strict conditions.
Fourth, the court found that the four elements of libel, i.e., the allegation of a
discreditable act or condition involving another; publication of the charge; the identity of
the person defamed and existence of malice, were all submitted and proven by the
prosecution. The court said that there was even no need to prove malice in the case of
Keng, a private person, as the Supreme Court has already ruled in a previous case that
"..the prosecution need not prove the existence of malice where the offended person is a
private individual as the law explicitly presumes its existence from the defamatory
character of the assailed statement.." (Cruz, 2020)
Judge Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa said Rappler offered no proof to back up its
allegations against Wilfredo Keng. She said that her verdict was based on the evidence
presented to the court - adding that freedom of the press "cannot be used as a shield"
against libel. Instead, they went to town crying harassment, persecution, and restricting of
press freedom on the part of the Duterte administration.
3. What lesson did you learn from Ms. Ressa's experience?

There is no point on publishing an article with no basis or evidences proving the


veracity of the information, no matter how high the possibility that it could be a true
piece of information and how intriguing it could be to the public. If there is no evidence
to prove the statements, it shouldn’t be published. First of all a journalist duty is to
publish information that are based on facts. Yes libel seems to be a normal case for a
journalist, but that does not mean that it’s okay to get charged by it. Ms. Ressa’s
experience also taught me that a journalist can gain sympathy from the public but would
not help you get away from a case that you are accountable of.

References:
Cruz, J. D. (2020, June 26). Judge Montesa did right. Retrieved from manilastandard.net:
https://manilastandard.net/mobile/article/327001

Nonato, V. (2020, June 16). Following Maria Ressa’s Conviction, Groups Warn Even 12-Year-
Old Articles, Posts Online Can Be Used For Libel. Retrieved from One News:
https://www.onenews.ph/following-maria-ressa-s-conviction-groups-warn-even-12-year-
old-articles-posts-online-can-be-used-for-libel

Santos, I. J. (2020, June 15). Court clears Rappler but convicts Ressa, ex-researcher of cyber
libel. Retrieved from VERA Files: https://verafiles.org/articles/court-clears-rappler-
convicts-ressa-ex-researcher-cyber-libe

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy