MANILA, Philippines – Citing its role as the “Community of the People,” the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion with the Supreme Court (SC) recommending that the justices remove the Nobel Peace Prize winner and Rappler CEO. Maria Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. of their Duterte-era internet scandal case.
“…in the faithful performance of his duties as an officer of the court and as the Council of the People, the Solicitor General most respectfully recommends the release of the petitioners based on the instructions,” Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe said in the March 6 show, released Tuesday, March 10.
Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 it convicted Ressa and Santos of internet defamation in June 2020 – under the administration of then president Rodrigo Duterte – over a cyber defamation complaint filed by businessman Wilfredo Keng.
Court of Appeal denied the appeal of Ressa and Santos in 2022, prompting them to refer the case to the SC.
In recommending acquittal, the OSG said Keng sued Ressa and Santos after the statute of limitations to file defamation cases had already expired. It is one of the important points, too, of Ressa and Santos.
The resulting case
The OSG cited the Court’s decision in Berteni Causing v. Peopleissued in October 2023, which clarified the statute of limitations for cyber defamation cases. The prescription period, which varies from case to case, is the length of time a case can be opened. A legal action filed beyond the prescription period is invalid.
According to the Causation Case decided by the Third Division of the SC, the duration of cyber libel orders is only one year, and not 12 years. It added that cyber libel orders should comply Revised Penal Code (RPC), which keeps orders for one year, and not Republic Act No. 3326 which sets the order for 12 years.
The OSG said that in the case of Causing, the SC explained that Section 4(c)(4) of RA No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act did not create an entirely new offense of defamation for the purposes of the directive, but only enforces the defamation provisions of the RPC which are sections 353 and 35.
Take exception
The OSG said “it cannot avoid its duty to submit to the Court a position that, in its considered decision, best serves the Government and the Citizens, in line with its duty to participate in the work of providing justice.”
It said that the attorney general “must always follow the law, even when doing so requires abandoning, or taking exception to, the position previously taken by the prosecution in the case.”
The OSG added that the Cause case was, in fact, overturned Tolentino v People case, which states that the statute of limitations for cyber libel is 15 years.
When the Manila court to be judged Ressa and Santos of the Internet scandal, then-presiding Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa wanted him Tolentino vs. People.
The OSG said the Cause case “clarified that the orders are controlled by paragraph 4, not paragraph 2, of Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, as the online defamation is ordered in one year. Furthermore, the Court said that the time of the orders is counted from the date of discovery of the offense by the offended party, only when the authorities and investigative materials are available.”
“Having reconsidered the claim to balance the protection of reputation, privacy, and dignity with constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties, the OSG now accepts the Court’s judgment in Cause and its application for the instant case,” it added.
The OSG said its proposal “does not diminish the Government’s legitimate interest in punishing cybercrime” but “only gives effect to the temporary limitation imposed by law.”
“The only valid behavior is to be released.”
Record of events
Keng filed a cyber defamation complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation against Ressa and Santos in 2018 during the height of the Duterte government’s attacks on Rappler and independent news organizations – or six years after the story about him from Rappler.
Keng’s complaint said he discovered the 2012 story, which implicated him in alleged crimes, in 2016. The justice department under Jose Calida filed the case before a Manila court in February 2019.
The OSG said that since Keng discovered the article in 2016, the statute of limitations had already expired in 2017 — and the filing of the complaint, the NBI investigation, and the filing of the case in court took place after the expiration of the statute.
“In accepting Causing’s sensitive balancing of rights and interests, the OSG therefore shares the measured approach of the Honorable Court in Disini and related cases: while the State may punish defamation to protect guaranteed rights, its enforcement must be limited in order not to sweep away, or silence, constitutionally protected, non-discriminatory expression,” the OSG explained.
“Relatedly, and without extending the issues, the OSG notes that the amicus submissions of the United Nations Special Expert on freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khanand IBAHRI similarly emphasize the same value when advocating for clear, predictable rules of limitations in internet defamation lawsuits, especially where the speech involves matters of public interest, so that legitimate expression is not unduly suppressed,” it added. Rappler.com
