By Moira Encina
Eagle News Service
Rappler’s Chief Executive Officer Maria Ressa made an appearance before the Department of Justice on Tuesday, April 23, to subscribe to her counter-affidavit in connection with the cyberlibel complaint filed against the news site.
Ressa went ahead and did the same even if the preliminary investigation on the case was scheduled on April 25, Wednesday, at 2 p.m.
This was because she reportedly would be unable to attend the hearing slated on that day because she would be at the launch of Reporters Sans Frontières’ 2018 World Press Freedom Index in Seoul, South Korea.
“I appeal to the men and women of the Department of Justice, the good men and women who are here: they should be doing the due diligence so that they don’t publicly ,align anyone or subject innocent people to public trials without any due process,” Ressa said.
Earlier in the day, Ressa was a no-show in the hearing on the tax evasion case filed against her media organization.
Her lawyers represented her instead, and asked for time for her to submit her counteraffidavit.
The cyber-libel complaint against Ressa, Reynaldo Santos, former Rappler writer; and Rappler directors Manuel Ayala, Nico Jose Nolledo, Glenda Gloria, James Bitanga, Felicia Atienza, Dan Alber de Padua and Jose Maria Hofilena, stems from an article published by the news site in 2012.
The article written by Santos alleged that businessman Wilfredo Keng lent his sport utility vehicle to then-Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was facing an impeachment trial.
The report detailed what it said was Keng’s shady past, citing what Rappler claimed was an intelligence report.
Keng admitted to owning a vehicle with plate number ZWK 111, but denied, based on Land Transportation Office documents, that it was the one used by Corona in 2011.
In their defense, Ressa and Santos said in their counter-affidavits previously submitted to the NBI that Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code provides for libel to be extinguished “by prescription” in one year.
They also argued they could not be prosecuted for cyber-libel because at the time the “alleged libelous article” was published, the Cybercrime Prevention Act was “not yet in effect.”
Rappler is still appealing a Securities and Exchange Commission decision that revoked its business license on the grounds it violated constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership of media.