(Eagle News)—-Former Senator Jinggoy Estrada on Saturday, Feb. 16, hit Rappler for what he said was its “irresponsible journalism.”
“Sobrang biased. One-sided lagi. Gagawa ka ng mabuti, ang lalabas ay masama,” Estrada said in an interview over radio DWIZ.
According to Estrada, Rappler appeared to be particularly against those siding with the current administration, and would “make issues” of them in its reports.
Estrada made the statement as Rappler, its chief executive officer Maria Ressa and former reporter Reynaldo Santos Jr. face cyber libel charges filed by businessman Wilfredo Keng over an article published in the news site in 2012.
The article had described Keng as “controversial,” and as having “alleged links” to illegal drugs and human trafficking, based on a supposed intelligence report.
The article also alleged Keng lent then-Chief Justice Renato Corona an expensive sport utility vehicle which he supposedly used while he was facing an impeachment case.
Keng has vehemently denied the allegations.
Abuse
Ressa, who was arrested on Wednesday, Feb. 13 in connection with this, has decried the charges and her arrest, calling them an attack on press freedom, and an abuse of power on the part of government.
But the Palace countered it was actually Ressa who was abusing her power as a journalist, as it said she appeared to want treatment that differed from that given to an ordinary citizen who violates the laws.
Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo added those who supported Ressa were either misinformed or had not read the Department of Justice resolution that indicted her, Rappler and Santos.
DOJ reso
In indicting the three, the DOJ said the elements of libel were present in the article.
While it agreed with Ressa’s camp the May 2012 publication of the article was not covered by the Cybercrime Prevention Act, which was enacted in September of that year, the DOJ said the 2014 editing of the same article was covered by the same.
The DOJ said this was because based on the multiple publication rule put forward by the Supreme Court in a previous case, the modification of a story was tantamount to a republication of the same, and constituted therefore a separate offense.
The DOJ also denied Ressa camp’s argument that they could no longer be charged as the one-year prescriptive period for libel had already lapsed.
According to the DOJ, Ressa and her camp were charged with cyber libel which, under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, carried with it a punishment a degree higher than that of libel.
Given this, based on Republic Act 3326, which governs special laws such as the cybercrime law, the DOJ said the prescriptive period for cyber libel was 12 years.
