Philippines Spits On Free Speech, Convicts Journalist Maria Ressa For Criminal 'Cyber Libel'
from the an-attack-on-a-free-press dept
This is a real travesty. Reporter Maria Ressa (and research Rey Santos Jr.) have been convicted of criminal "cyber libel" in the Philippines, and now face fines and possibly years in jail for their reporting -- a direct attack on free speech and a free press in the Philippines.
For a few years now, we've been reporting on the various attempts by the Filipino government to silence Maria Ressa, a famous reporter in the Philippines, who founded the news site, Rappler. Ressa is a force of nature, and has been reporting careful, detailed, but embarrassing articles about the Filipino government that has upset many people there. There were some trumped up "tax evasion" charges (based on the government misrepresenting the nature of a grant from the philanthropic Omidyar Network), but there have been a number of other questionable legal attacks as well. A year ago, we noted at least 11 questionable lawsuits, including one in which Ressa was arrested in early 2019 under claims of "criminal cyber libel" for an article about businessman Wilfredo Keng and his close connections to former chief justice of the Filipino Supreme Court Renato Corona. Keng claimed that parts of the article -- that claimed he had "alleged links to illegal drugs and human trafficking" -- were defamatory.
There were all sorts of problems with the charges, including that the "cyber libel" law in question was enacted four months after the story ran, and just the idea that there is such a thing as criminal, rather than civil defamation, should raise huge concerns, especially in a country like the Philippines that has free speech built into its Constitution (it's their 4th Amendment and is modeled very closely on the US's 1st Amendment: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances").
You'd think that would make the cyber libel law unconstitutional, but so far the courts don't seem to think so. The ruling, which can be appealed (and almost certainly will be), raises all sorts of questions. For example, as noted above, the law passed months after the article was published and the prosecutors convinced a judge that didn't matter because Rappler later corrected a few typos in the article, and those corrections were done after the law was put in place -- so therefore it seemed to count as a new publication. There was also the problem of the statute of limitations (it seems that's referred to as the "prescription period" in the Philippines). The statue of limitations for libel is 1 year, and Keng's complaint was filed 5 years after the article. But prosecutors played some bizarre legal games to say that "cyber libel" did not apply under standard libel laws in the Filipino code, but rather was a "special law" and as such, had a 12 year statute of limitations -- an interpretation that had legal experts in the Philippines scratching their heads.
As for the actual claims, Keng did not dispute the key point of the article (regarding an SUV that he owned being used by the former chief justice), but rather was upset about statements concerning his alleged "shady past" which were based on two reports (including a government intelligence report they had obtained) that the reporters mentioned. However, Keng argued that those claims were false, and provided Rappler with a certificate from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency that apparently cleared him of any wrong doing. In response, Rappler claimed that the government intelligence report it had seen was not from the DEA, and they would investigate the DEA's certification, though it appears that investigation was never completed.
But the judge seemed to think that was enough for cyber libel:
Judge Rainelda Estacio Montesa faulted Rappler for not publishing a clarification, and said the "article was republished with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
"This clearly shows actual malice," said the judge.
These phrases, again, all stem from US defamation law, but here they're used in an upside down manner that would not be at all consistent with how defamation works in the US. Having government reports that you relied on in your reporting would generally mean there's no actual malice in the US, because there would be the disclosed facts on which the statements were based, and the relying on those reports should protect them. But, again, because of the typo corrections, the judge bought into the prosecutors line that the article was "republished" after it had been sent the DEA report.
There are some other upside down things compared to US law, including the claim that a well known business person is not considered a "public figure," meaning that there was a lower standard of proof.
The whole situation is likely to chill free speech and a free press in the Philippines, and that's very unfortunate, especially at a time when the government there is accused of all sorts of questionable activities. The country's VP and opposition leader, Leni Robredo, has already spoken out against the ruling:
On Monday, June 15, the Philippines’ opposition leader reiterated her Independence Day message that a “threat to the freedom of even a single Filipino is a threat to all of our freedoms.”
"Reports have come in regarding the guilty verdict against Maria Ressa. This is a chilling development… If the law and our government institutions can be brought to bear upon Ms Ressa, then we should be wary of what this means to the freedoms of ordinary citizens,” Robredo said in a statement.
[....]
Robredo, a known advocate for free speech and freedom of the press, said Ressa and Santos’ conviction is just the “latest instance of law being utilized to muzzle our free press” under the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte.
“Silencing, harassing, and weaponizing law against the media sends a clear message to every dissenting voice: Keep quiet or you are next,” the Vice President.
That is the very nature of the chilling effects when free speech is under attack. One hopes that the convictions are overturned on appeal.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, free speech, libel, maria ressa, philippines
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Judge Rainelda Estacio Montesa faulted Rappler for not publishing a clarification, and said the "article was republished with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Leave errors in the original article? Blamed for not publishing 'clarifications'.
Fix typos or other errors in the original article? That resets the clock on defamation claims and can be used against you for not doing a 'good enough' job on it.
That law is a dictator's best friend, and show just how much contempt those in power have towards any real free speech.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Meanwhile Donald Trump is likely drooling over the idea of passing such a law in the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have never understood why essentially totalitarian dictators like Duterte, Castro, Kim, Jinping, etc always try to maintain a facade of "legality" by using twisted laws, compliant courts, and obedient prosecutors and judges. I have read, but still do not fully grok, that the charade is usually necessary to maintain support from a sufficiently large "base" to remain in unchallenged power. But there seems to be some serious dissonance between playing these transparent games on the one hand, and executing people with anti-aircraft artillery (or committing similar, but less spectacular, atrocities) on the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They learned that from the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The theater of law does exactly what the dictators require. It turns anyone against some facet of the regime into a criminal, one way or another. Criminals can be easily dismissed by certain kinds of people. For example, the rush by some people to brand all demonstrators, protesters and rioters all together under the misinformed name of TERRORISTS, because when you say TERRORISTS you can waterboard people and lock them in holes forever and shoot them in the face with rubber slugs and have them savaged by dogs and you get to feel like a big strong man with very large and strong hands that are not tiny.
..just for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Throughout much of human history, it has been the case that there is one set of laws designed to protect the establishment ruling party, and another set of laws for everyone else. That was one of the big achievements with the Magna Carta: same rules for everyone, even the king!
Without such a concept of equal rights, many rulers viewed the law as a weapon, and they think that they deserve to have the law "on their side" because they feel that they are so important and righteous to their country. For totalitarians, laws are not a set of rules for everyone to live by. Instead, laws are a way to punish people who are not on your side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ironically enough I heard a theory that the "applies to everyone" was never the Barons' goal, that John slipped it in as a one fingered salute to the barons and maybe as sabotage, so that the barons would renounce the agreement when they realized it hobbled them as much as the king. Very nearly succeeded, the document was largely forgotten for several centuries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think teka is on the right track, in that by maintaining a facade of legality and 'fairness' the government is able to pretend that those that it crushes had it coming, that they earned the boot/bullet.
If a government comes out and honestly admits to being a dictatorship where those in charge can and will do whatever the hell they want and the peons object at their own risk then they make it clear that they are a threat to everyone below them, providing a rallying point to those that would oppose them. If on the other hand they pretend to be a 'regular' government they can play the public off itself, setting one group against another and keeping the heat off them, and should anyone try to call attention to that then clearly said group is comprised of criminals and/or anarchists, and anything they say can be dismissed as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It also adds strangely effective cover when other nations question whether the rule of law has been dissolved or corrupted. You just make a show of it, like the US or Brazil, or Poland or Hungary in recent years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'to chill free speech and a free press in the Philippines'
since when has this only been happening in the Philippines? it's going on in almost every and any country you care to name, including here! the whole idea is to suppress the people and allow the elite few to control and conquer, enslaving all! anyone who stands up to these dictators, and that's all they are, are, as was done to her, arrested on trumped up charges, tried under altered 'to suit the circumstances so as to gain a conviction' laws and banged up! those doing this never think that the same could happen to them! they always think they have so much power as to be 'too big to fail'! the problem with that mindset is, sooner or later, the people have their say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Judge Rainelda Estacio Montesa faulted Rappler for not publishing a clarification, and said the "article was republished with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Leave errors in the original article? Blamed for not publishing 'clarifications'.
Fix typos or other errors in the original article? That resets the clock on defamation claims and can be used against you for not doing a 'good enough' job on it.
That law is a dictator's best friend, and show just how much contempt those in power have towards any real free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]