Ressa, Santos conviction made Philippine journalism 'most burdensome profession' –CenterLaw

The Center for International Law (CenterLaw) on Thursday said the court decision finding Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and a former researcher guilty of cyber libel made journalism in the Philippines a "most burdensome profession."

CenterLaw expressed "grave concern" over the conviction of Ressa and Reynaldo Santos, Jr., saying it has "adverse implications" on press freedom and free expression.

The lawyers' group, founded by presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, maintained Congress should repeal the Philippines' criminal libel laws, citing the United Nations Human Rights Committee's view that imprisonment for libel is "incompatible with Philippine treaty obligations to protect freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa on Monday sentenced Ressa and Santos to up to six years in prison over a "republication" of a Rappler article that cites an "intelligence report" linking a businessman to criminal activities.

In the verdict, the judge considered an "updated" version of the article in 2014 -- originally published in 2012, before the anti-cybercrime law was enacted -- a "republication." She also said the crime of cyber libel prescribes in 12 years -- much longer than the one-year prescriptive period for libel.

"Thus, the decision of conviction incidentally made journalism in the Philippines a most burdensome profession as journalists may have to reckon with a longer 12-year prescriptive period hanging over their heads in their pursuit for truth and accountability," CenterLaw said.

"This clearly presents an unprecedented chilling effect on press freedom and on free expression in particular. This restrictive interpretation by the trial court affects not just the free exercise of journalism in the country but the free discussion of issues of the public good among citizens," it added.

CenterLaw said the judge extended the prescriptive period to 12 years
"despite legislation in Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4661, which provides for a specific 1-year prescriptive period for libel."

The group also quoted the Supreme Court (SC) that “cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code, already punishes it.”

It also claimed that the judge resorted to the republication theory "without due regard" for what the SC said in the case of Disini vs. The Secretary of Justice that “[t]he old parameters for enforcing the traditional form of libel would be a square peg in a round hole when applied to cyberspace libel.”

This case, decided in 2014, is where the SC ruled on the petitions challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

The SC ruled that the online libel provision in the law is constitutional even as it struck down others, including a provision that empowers the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to data violating the law.

In the landmark ruling, the court said only authors of the libelous material are covered, not those who received or reacted to it.

In its statement, CenterLaw quoted the SC as saying that '[u]nless the legislature crafts a cyber libel law that takes into account its unique circumstances and culture, such law will tend to create a chilling effect on the millions that use this new medium of communication in violation of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of expression." --KBK, GMA News