Philippines journalist convicted in highly criticised libel case

In February, 2014 Philippines news website Rappler corrected a typographical error on a story it had published two years earlier, and the move has now been used as a technicality by government agencies to have the authors —Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos Jr, jailed for up to 12 years.

The initial story had misspelled the word evasion, as “evation”.

Ms Ressa is an award winning journalist that previously worked for CNN and has nearly four decades’ experience under her belt. In 2018 she was named among Time Magazine’s people of the year.

Mr Santos Jr is a former writer and researcher at Rappler.

Prosecutors now argue that in correcting the typo, Rappler republished an updated version of the story whose subject, suspected drug trafficker Wilfredo Fang, insists was defamatory of him.

The article highlighted links between former Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was then facing impeachment, and Mr Fang.

Ms Ressa and Mr Santos Jr based their story largely on intelligence reports.

Lawmakers in Philippines made cyber-libel a felony in 2012, meaning a guilty verdict is escorted with a jail term.

Two years after the law change, Rappler corrected the typo. Three years after the typo correction, Mr Fang filed a complaint against Rappler with the National Bureau of Investigation (NIB).

And on Monday, judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa delivered her verdict and convicted the journalist. The verdict is likely to have far reaching effects on media laws across the globe.

In Philippines, the law provides for a one-year window to take legal action for libel.

Mr Fang filed his complaint against Ms Ressa and Mr Santos Jr in 2017—five years after the 2012 publication and two years after the correction of a typo in the article.

One of the strongest factors that determine court cases is precedence.

And whichever way judge Estacio-Montesa rules, it will set a precedent that will likely be used in several jurisdictions.

In essence, the judge’s decision could be a firm authority on whether or not courts can go against timelines prescribed by law and reopen cases that would otherwise be dead on arrival.

The case could also open the door for journalists and bloggers to face prosecution multiple times over a single story.

Despite the fact that Philippines’ laws provide a one-year window for legal action on libel, the NIB picked up the case.

The fact that the lapse of the one-year window is one of the contention points of the case means that the Monday ruling shall interest more than just journalists and social media users.

Judge Estacio-Montesa’s verdict will have implications on limitation of action laws around the world, as it could be used as an authority to open cases where time for filing or prosecution has lapsed.

Limitation of action is simply a period provided for in law after which a case cannot be prosecuted in court.

What makes Ms Ressa’s case worth following is the fact that some jurisdictions with questionable judicial processes can use it to oppress individuals critical of government or the powers that be.

“If the judge finds me guilty it will mean that republication is a fact which creates a problem for online journalists and social media. You could be prosecuted multiple times for the same story. The judge would be saying we are now accepting republication but we would challenge that all the way to the Supreme Court,” Ms Ressa said in a Wednesday webinar.

Judge Estacio-Montesa was to have delivered her verdict on April 3, but adjourned to June 15.

Ms Ressa says she is worried about being sentenced to jail, but more worried that a guilty verdict would mean that the government would have found a new way to silence people critical of it.

“On average there aren’t too many cases against journalists. The way press freedoms are threatened in Philippines is not through filing of court cases. The closest (to using libel and defamation cases to threaten press freedom) was when the husband of our former President filed a series of libel cases against a journalist but he withdrew them after public pressure.”

“In Philippines, if people have a beef with you, they don’t file a case, they do something else. In Philippines journalists get killed,” Ms Ressa said in the webinar.

And Ms Ressa is not wrong, as the country has reported the killing of at least 176 journalists since 1986. In 2016 President Duterte publicly said that some of the journalists deserved to die.

When being probed for cyber-libel, the NBI ignored responses by Mr Ressa and Mr Santos Jr to the effect that the one-year window lapsed, and proceeded to have them charged.

The two journalists were arrested past business hours on February 13, 2019 in what was seen as an attempt to have the duo held in custody for longer hours and deny them access to courts that may have ruled against the move by police.

Their arrest followed a warrant issued by judge Estacio-Montesa.

A night court in Manila refused to let Ms Ressa post bail.

She eventually posted bail of 100,000 Filipino Pesos (approximately Sh200,000).

The trial started on July 23, 2019 and took only eight months in what may go down as one of the fastest tried libel cases.

Since January, 2018 Ms Ressa has been arrested at least seven times with 11 cases brought against her, in an attempt to silence the journalist and Rappler.

The other highly prominent case Mr Duterte’s administration has attempted to push against Ms Ressa and Rappler involved the ownership of Rappler.

The Filipino President’s administration banned foreign ownership of media houses, and had Ms Ressa arrested in March, last year claiming that Rappler is not locally owned.

Mr Duterte had insisted that Rappler is controlled by unnamed entities outside the Philippines.