THE Philippine Judges Association (PJA) on Monday denounced “abusive attacks and criticisms” being thrown against the judiciary following the conviction for cyber liber of social news network Rappler executive editor Maria Ressa and a former news researcher.
In a news statement, the PJA, through its President Judge Felix Reyes of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, said some of these criticisms even portrayed that the “rule of law in the country is broken and democracy is under threat.”
The PJA is the lone association of regional trial court judges recognized by the Supreme Court.
Judge Reyes said judges were compelled to speak out as the attacks against the judiciary were “vicious” and may lead to the public losing trust and confidence in the country’s judicial system.
“Abusive criticisms are unfounded innuendoes hurled against courts and judges erode the public’s trust and confidence on the very institution tasked to protect the people’s rights,” Judge Reyes added.
The PJA president also reminded the public that the main role of the judiciary in a functioning democracy is to settle controversies on the basis of facts and laws.
Facts, according to Judge Reyes, are established by evidence and the law is applied based on the facts established.
Judge Reyes reminded the losing party in a case before the trial court that there are still remedies under the law.
The PJA said the adherence to the judicial system “makes people rely upon courts with substantial certainty.”
Judge Reyes added that this would also encourage the resolution of disputes in the courtroom rather than on the streets.
He said “personal attacks, criticisms laden with political threats, those that misrepresent and distort the nature and context of judicial decisions, those that are misleading, or without factual, or legal basis, and those that blame the judges for the ills of society, damage the integrity of the judiciary and threaten the doctrine of judicial independence.”
“These attacks do a grave disservice to the principle of an independent judiciary and mislead the public as the role of judges in a constitutional democracy, shaking the very foundation of our democratic government,” the PJA head added.
In a news statement following Ressa’s conviction last June 15, Rappler said “the decision marks not the rule of law, but the rule of law twisted to suit the interests of those in power who connive to satisfy their mutually beneficial personal and political agenda.”
Vice President Leni Robredo also joined critics of the decision, saying that it would send a “chilling” effect on the freedoms enjoyed by the ordinary citizen.
In convicting, Ressa and and her co-accused, Reynaldo Santos Jr., Manila RTC Branch 46 Presiding Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa took into consideration the failure of the defense to present Ressa and Santos to refute the charge against them despite the court’s earlier ruling that the evidence for the prosecution is competent and sufficient to sustain their indictment for violation of Section 4 (c) (4) of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Judge Montesa indicated that it was a big blow to their case since Ressa and Santos are in the best position to testify that the article was published with good motives and justifiable ends.
The trial court sentenced both of them from six months up to six years of imprisonment.
They were also ordered to pay complainant-businessman Wilfredo Keng the amount of P400,000 as moral and exemplary damages.
The cyber libel case is just one of the many cases filed against Ressa and Rappler after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revoked its business registration due to violation of the constitutional prohibition on foreign ownership of mass media.
Ressa and other officials of Rappler are also indicted for tax evasion worth a total of P108 million, as well as for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.
Ressa has denied all the charges and accused the Duterte administration of political persecution due to Rappler’s critical reporting on the government’s bloody crackdown on illegal drugs.
In the same ruling, the judge reminded media men that while the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and of the press, such freedom is burdened with responsibility to “recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.”
“The right to free speech and freedom of the press cannot and should not be used as a shield against accountability. If a person is found violating this law in accordance with the parameters it provides, then he or she is penalized and will be held accountable,” the ruling read.
She added that the case does not involve the government, or any of its officials, as complainant to warrant accusation of political persecution but merely a case filed by a private individual against an online news organizations for malicious and defamatory imputations upon his person.
“The exercise of a freedom should and must be used with due regard to the freedom of others, the judge added.
1 comment