Rappler’s Ressa Charged In Second Cyber ​​Defamation Case For Sharing Tweets With Screenshots Of Newspaper Article

MANILA – Just 5 months after her conviction for cyberlibel, the CEO of the news website Rappler, Maria Ressa, faces her second online defamation case brought by the same businessman who executed her on the first count.

Makati City prosecutors charged Ressa on November 23 with violating Section 4 (c) 4 of Republic Law 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in relation to Art. 353 of the revised Penal Code about defamation about a tweet he posted on February 16, 2019.

In the tweet, Ressa shared screenshots of a 2002 Philippine Star article tagging merchant Wilfredo Keng in the murder of a former Manila councilor and in various alleged illegal activities.

Here is the 2002 article on the ‘private businessman’ who brought the cyber libel case, which was dismissed by the NBI and later revived by the Justice Department. #HoldTheLine, ”he said in his tweet, 3 days after his arrest for the first cyber defamation complaint filed by Keng.

Ressa said she was answering questions about why she was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for a 2012 article Rappler published about the businessman.

Rappler’s article cited parts of the 2002 Philippine Star report, which had subsequently been withdrawn at Keng’s request.

For that article, Ressa and former Rappler writer and researcher Reynaldo Santos, Jr. were found guilty of cyber defamation by a Manila court in June and sentenced to up to 6 years in prison.

RELATED STORIES:

MALICE?

Finding probable cause to indict Ressa for the second cyber defamation case, the city’s chief deputy prosecutor Mark Anthony Nuguit said that Ressa acted maliciously when he posted the tweet.

“[O]For all the things he could say, he deliberately chose a 17-year-old article, already removed by Philippine Star from his website, which tends to cause disgrace, discredit and contempt [the] plaintiff, “said the resolution.

“At the time the defendant posted the post on Twitter, she had just been arrested and jailed in connection with another case brought by the plaintiff. Thus, [respondent] he had the motive to speak ill against the complaint ”, adds the resolution, citing a 2008 case in which the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of journalist and entertainment columnist Cristy Fermín about his conviction for defamation.

Fermín’s conviction involved a 1995 tabloid article, not a tweet, and took place seven years before the Cybercrime Prevention Act was enacted in 2012.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in the Disini case against the Secretary of Justice, which declared that simply pressing like, commenting and sharing on social media cannot constitute cyber libel.

“With the exception of the original author of the attacked statement, the rest (those who pressed Like, Comment and Share) are essentially the instinctual feelings of readers who may think little or randomly about their response to the original post,” the Superior Court said .

WATCH: Rappler CEO Maria Ressa convicted of cyber defamation

“Will they be responsible for helping or inciting? And, considering the inherent impossibility of joining hundreds or thousands of ‘Friends’ or ‘Followers’ answering in the criminal charge that will be presented in court, who will make a decision on who should go to jail for the outbreak of the crime? contested publication? “he explained.

“The old parameters to enforce the traditional form of libel would be a square peg in a round hole when applied to cyberspace libel. Unless the legislature drafts a cyber defamation law that takes into account their unique circumstances and culture, such law will tend to create a chilling effect on the millions who use this new medium of communication in violation of their guaranteed right to free speech. constitutionally. ”He added.

But the Makati city prosecutors’ ruling said that Ressa “didn’t just hit the share button,” saying she had to search for Philippine Star’s article, take a screenshot, and upload the screenshots before making click the tweet button.

“[T]The foregoing cannot be considered an instinctive reaction on the part of the respondent, therefore, she should be responsible for the consequences of its publication on Twitter ”, said the resolution.

In his motion to vacate the criminal charge filed against him Thursday, Ressa, through his attorney Theodore Te, invoked Disini’s ruling.

“[I]If the ‘Comment’ not only reacts to the original post, but creates an entirely new defamatory story … then that should be considered an original post posted on the internet, ”he said, citing the ruling and summarizing the ruling in:

• only the author of a defamatory statement is responsible for cyberlibel
• Sharing or retweeting about defamatory social media content written by someone else cannot be punished as a cyberlibel nor can be punished as an accessory or complicity in a cyber crime
• sharing or retweeting defamatory content only becomes actionable if independent statements are made in the shared statement or in RT that are themselves defamatory

He noted that the criminal charge is based on a tweet that is not defamatory. If anything, he said, the allegedly defamatory statement was written by PhilStar.com, on which Keng allegedly took no action.

“Based on the sole statement of the defendant, there is no basis to consider the same defamatory under Article 353 in relation to Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, taken in relation to Article 4 (c) (4) of the RA 10175, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Disini ”, he said.

He also invoked freedom of expression under the Constitution, as a journalist.

“Keeping people informed, using any platform at their disposal (in this case, Twitter), is part of your duty as a journalist; certainly, the non-defamatory statement that she wrote to inform people who followed her on Twitter fails to exercise her right under article III, section 4 of the 1987 Constitution and cannot form the basis of this charge, ”she said .

Makati prosecutor Nuguit had rejected this argument, saying that Ressa allegedly failed to prove that he asked for Keng’s side before posting his tweet.

Ressa had moved to dismiss the new cyber defamation complaint while it was pending with the Makati city attorney’s office. It was archived in February.

READ MORE:

According to Rappler, Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 147 Judge Maria Amifaith Fider-Reyes issued an arrest warrant for the second count of cyber defamation on Friday and Ressa posted a P24,000 bond on the same day. .

This is the ninth arrest warrant for Ressa, who also faces charges of tax evasion from the sale of Philippine depository receipts by Rappler Holdings.

Ressa has continually objected to the cases against him, calling them “politically motivated” following Rappler’s critical coverage of President Rodrigo Duterte.

Keng’s camp had said that he is a private businessman and that the president has nothing to do with his case.