Isa Na Namang Legal “Acrobatics” Laban Sa Rappler

Dear KaPAB,

Bakit tinawag ko tong harassment case? Puntahan natin ang timeline ng kasong ito.

“On May 29, 2012 Rappler published a story, written by former reporter Reynaldo Santos Jr., alleging that a car used by former Chief Justice Renato Corona during his impeachment trial belonged to a businessman, Wilfredo Keng, who has alleged ties to human trafficking and drug smuggling rings.”

Tandaan niyo guys ha, 2012 ito nangyari.

Nagfile ng kaso January 10, 2018. The NBI Cybercrime Division dismissed the case. Reason? Wala daw basis and lumagpas na sa prescription, kasi within  one year dapat mafile mo na pag libel.

Pero naghanap talaga ng butas. Nagfile uli kasi daw ang prescription against Sect. 4c (4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act is 15 years.

Tama naman, 15 years. Pero ang tanong kailan nga naisabatas  ang  Cybercrime Prevention Act?

 

September 12, 2012. Kailangan napublished ang sinasabing article na libelous daw?

May 29, 2012. In other words nang napublished ang article wala pa ang batas na basis ng kaso.

Article 3 Section 22 ng Saligang Batas states,

 

Bawal ang “ex  post facto law” ayun sa saligang  batas natin. Ano ang ibig sabihin nito? Ang ex post facto law, ay law that applies to crimes that happened before the law was passed.

Sa madaling salita, nang nagpublished ang Rappler wala pang batas ng Cyberlibel noon. May kasabihan sa legal word na “Nulla poena sine lege” means one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. 

Libel law palang ang nag exist ng panahon na yun na ang prescription ay one year.  Kaya tama yung unang dismissal ng kaso.

Pero syempre may mga batas na pilit binabaliko para sa kapritso ng iilan.

Pilit sinusupil ang kalayaan magpahayag ng Rappler. Kung hindi yan, harrasment, hindi ko na alam talaga.

I Stand With Rappler,

PAB

 

 

 

Facebook Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *