Maria Ressa was arrested for a cyber-libel case filed against her which

stemmed from an article in 2012, published four months before the cyber-
law act came into force.
Questions:
1. Is there a violation of the principle: "nullum crimen nulla poena sine
lege"?
2. Is there a violation of the statute of limitations?

Nullum crimen because there was no law punishing the same at the time of
publication, and ex post facto because a law is now being used to
prosecute a person for an act which, when done, was not yet prohibited by
law.

Rhodora Arcega Malicdem 2012 pa ung publication tapos kelan lng

naenforce ang cybercrime law. Covered b ng cybercrime law ang alleged
libel through publication nong 2012?

EI U OL Rhodora Arcega Malicdem basahin mo yung cybercrime

prevention act of 2012 kaibigan sokpa yan.

Josef Gutierrez The article was published months before the law. So hindi
sya covered. Ex post facto if they give it retroactive application.

Jolet Paulo Dela Cruz Josef Gutierrez it was republished by rappler,

months or years after the effectivity of the act.

Josef Gutierrez Jolet Paulo Dela Cruz hypothetically conceding that, it still

doesn't change the fact that the supreme court ruling made it clear that the
original author would be penalized. Ressa was not the original author.
Nullum crimen.

Jolet Paulo Dela Cruz Technically, there is a crime committed. The

doctrine of Nullum crimen does not squarely apply in this case.

Josef Gutierrez Jolet Paulo Dela Cruz 

I guess that's partly true. I think I get what you're saying. The article may
still be libelous, after all.

But the law must clearly define the person who is to be penalized. The
supreme court decision on the matter says it must be the original author.
But ressa is not the author. So as regards Ressa, nullum crimen.

Alyzza Arana Pantejo Acabal Apparently, they are pushing for the theory
of continuous publication to circumvent the non-retroactivity of the law.
Personally, I think it's unconstitutional.
Josef Gutierrez Alyzza Arana Pantejo Acabal plus the supreme court
decision makes it clear that it penalizes the original author. And if I read
correctly, Ressa didn't write the article in question concerning Keng.

Elmer Solidon ano nanaman ang pumasok sa mga kukuti nila "pan-yelo"

pag pa aresto kay rissa? mga walang magawa!!!

Emil Francisco From inquirer

Chrisel Bauto There you go.

Nollie Calising Republishing it in 2014 after the request to take it down.

Any malice?…See More

Migzz Yadnurad Pay pay pay

Fructuoso Abella Villarin CYBER LIBEL

You want to fact check this arrest of Maria Ressa due to cyberlibel?
Consider these:

1. The case stemmed from an article posted by Rappler IN MAY 2012

against a businessman, Wilfredo Keng, whereby the said article alleged
that CJ Corona used an SUV owned by Keng during his impeachment trial.

2. Keng sued not because of the SUV angle but because the Rappler story
maliciously imputed that he is engaged in human trafficking and illegal
drugs.

3. Keng sued for cyberlibel in OCTOBER 2017, or 5 years after the original
story was posted. There was no cyber libel law yet when the story came
out IN MAY 2012. The Cyber Libel Law came in effect SEPTEMBER 2012.

4. However, instead of heeding the request of Keng to take down the story,
Rappler posted an update on the same story in FEBRUARY 2014, when
the cyberlibel law was already in effect.

5. Last January 10, the DOJ found probable cause against Maria Ressa,
reporter/researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. and Rappler for cyberlibel. 

6. The DOJ rejected the motion of Ressa’s camp to dismiss the charge
based on their argument that the filing was beyond the one year
prescription period. The DOJ said that under the cyberlibel law, there is no
1 Year prescription period indicated.

7. Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa issued a warrant of arrest dated

February 12, 2019, TUESDAY. 
8. Ressa had the whole day of Wednesday, Feb13, 2019 to post bail. But
she did not do so, and instead, invited media people to her office prior to
the arrival of the NBI personnel who were to serve the WOA. 

These are the facts. 

Walang drama yan, unlike Maria Ressa and her gang of snowflakes in
media like Karen Davila, Inday Varona, and others.

Go ahead. Check them. By mark lopez

Clark Amante so please guys stick to the fact, and not to the
evader/scammer like rappler.

Rizaldy Nolasco The better question perhaps is, why did rappler

republished the libelous article when they already knew there is already a
law against it? Is there malice in its republication?

Nollie Calising They re-publish the article in 2014 after a request to take it

down.

Know the facts. Don't omit.