SUMMARY
This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
A Makati court granted Rappler CEO Maria Ressa’s motion to travel after she sought its permission to fly to the US to visit her parents for the holidays.
She, however, needs the approval of 3 other courts to get full clearance to travel. Two courts are in Pasig – one for alleged tax evasion and another for alleged violation of the anti-dummy law – and the third one is the Court of Appeals which has yet to decide on the appeal of her cyber libel conviction.
At the same time, during a conditional arraignment on Tuesday, December 15, for her 2nd cyber libel charge, Ressa entered no plea, but Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 147 entered a not guilty plea on her behalf. This was in connection with her tweeting screenshots of a deleted article.
It was a conditional arraignment because Ressa’s pre-arraignment relief – a motion to quash the charges – has not yet been resolved by Judge Maria Amifaith S. Fider-Reyes. But Ressa had filed a motion to travel, and to be able to act on that motion, the court has to acquire jurisdiction over her – thus the conditional arraignment.
Conditional means Ressa is not waiving her motion to quash.
A 7th case, which is a consolidated anti-dummy and securities code case, has been remanded by the Pasig court to prosecutors for reinvestigation.
Travel as a constitutional right
In an earlier decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) pertaining to her previous travel request, justices of the tax court discussed constitutional issues and said that a conviction should not be a sole reason to prohibit Ressa from traveling.
A Pasig court handling one tax charge also earlier expressed concern that Ressa may be locked down overseas and therefore be put out of reach of Philippine authorities.
But the CTA justices addressed that concern, saying that the pandemic had allowed courts to conduct virtual hearings, and so Ressa can still attend to the court online even from abroad.
The 2nd libel charge stemmed from a complaint by the same businessman, Wilfredo Keng.
It is a charge over tweeting screenshots of an article not written by Ressa. This is uncharted territory in the young Philippine Cybercrime Law because the Supreme Court had already declared unconstitutional the provision that made sharing a libelous post a crime. – Rappler.com
Add a comment
How does this make you feel?
There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.