Rappler legal cases

In Maria Ressa’s plea, tax court rules conviction not a reason to bar travel

Lian Buan

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

In Maria Ressa’s plea, tax court rules conviction not a reason to bar travel

LEGAL CASES. Rappler CEO Maria Ressa steps out of the Makati City court Friday December 4, 2020, after filing a Motion to Quash for a 2nd cyberlibel case filed against her by businessman Wilfredo Keng.

Photo by Inoue Jaena/Rappler

The tax court emphasizes the constitutional right to travel

In resolving Maria Ressa’s motion against a Pasig court’s refusal to let her travel, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) said the fact that she was convicted of cyber libel in June is not enough reason to bar her from leaving the country.

But the CTA upheld a Pasig judge’s rejection of the Rappler CEO’s request to travel in August, saying it was made within the context of the pandemic lockdown.

And the justices took the chance to discuss the constitutional right to travel.

“(Ressa’s) conviction in the Cyber Libel case alone is not sufficient justification for the court a quo to prevent her from attending to her professional engagements outside the country,” wrote Associate Justices Juanito Castañeda Jr and Jean Marie Bacorro-Villena.

The tax justices were addressing Ressa’s motion for certiorari against Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 157 Judge Ana Teresa Cornejo-Tomacruz for alleged grave abuse of discretion over a July order that appeared to ban Ressa from traveling while the case was pending before her sala.

Fearing Ressa might not come back, Tomacruz wrote in her order: “To the court’s mind, the possibility that Ms. Ressa may be forced by circumstances to remain abroad, should the global health situation deteriorate over time, is very real. If this happens, the accused may indefinitely be placed beyond the court’s jurisdiction.”

Another court, the Court of Appeals, also denied Ressa’s motion to travel, citing her conviction as a reason that “warrants the exercise of greater caution in allowing a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines.” It also said the travel was not urgent. 

Track record

Ressa emphasized to both courts that she has adhered to all court processes, subjected herself to various court jurisdictions, has returned to the Philippines after every travel, and has appeared in all courts to prove her arrival.

The courts gave her permission to travel at least 34 times since 2018.

The CTA said there should be no fear that Ressa would decide to stay longer because of the lockdowns.

“Finally, the travel restrictions are temporary and flexible and, thus, may also ease up. This reality will allay any concerns that lockdowns will prevent petitioner Ressa from ever coming back and place her permanently beyond the reach of the trial court,” said the CTA.

What travel, and why CTA? Ressa faces 5 tax charges in two separate courts; one cyber libel charge in Makati; and one cyber libel conviction on appeal at the Court of Appeals. For her to be able to travel, she has to get permission from all those courts. (READ: List of cases vs Ressa, Rappler, directors and staff)

Ressa’s 4 tax charges were lodged at the CTA, while the 5th is pending with the Pasig RTC, where she was arraigned on July 22 and which holds a P1 million travel bond.

The motion was for travel to the United States for journalism conferences and to attend screenings of the documentary A Thousand Cuts from August 1 to 30.

It reached the CTA because the Pasig RTC denied the motion in July, citing, among others, the pandemic lockdown.

Ressa appealed the Pasig RTC’s decision to the CTA via a petition for certiorari, and the tax court ruled it had jurisdiction to review decisions of a lower court such as this.

Virtual trials

In discussing this new normal, the CTA offered guidance, saying even if the journalist was stuck abroad because of the lockdown, trial can still proceed.

“In the event that petitioner Ressa may still be abroad and thus, unable to physically appear in court, trial in a virtual hearing will still be possible,” the CTA said.

“Modern communications technology is at the service of parties to enable petitioner Ressa to submit to the trial court’s jurisdiction whenever so required,” the CTA added.

If Ressa is arraigned over her 2nd cyber libel charge in Makati, that would be one court in addition to the other courts that will have to give her permission to travel.

Why did the CTA deny? The CTA denied Ressa’s appeal of the Pasig RTC decision because, according to the justices, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion because it only denied travel in August only, not for the life of the case.

The trial court’s concern that the lockdowns may put Ressa out of the court’s reach are “observations (that) are firmly grounded on the facts that are still current.”

The CTA took note that the Pasig RTC’s decision during the pandemic may change when the situation changes.

“It is worth noting that the assailed resolutions were limited narrowly enough to a specific travel period because of the exigencies caused by the pandemic,” said the CTA.

The CTA said the Pasig RTC’s denial of Ressa’s travel was made on a per-case basis, and she should not worry that it will be the same case throughout her trial. 

“The trial court’s prudence may be called again if, upon motion, permission is asked to attend forthcoming engagements outside the country. In such cases, the appropriate resolution will depend upon the trial court’s assessment of the evolving situation,” said the CTA. – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!
Face, Happy, Head

author

Lian Buan

Lian Buan is a senior investigative reporter, and minder of Rappler's justice, human rights and crime cluster.