REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI, BRANCH 147

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. 20-02883-CR

versus - For: Cyberlibel (RA 10175, 54[c] [4])

MARIA RESSA,
Accused.
x…………………………….x

MOTION TO QUASH
Ex Abundante Cautelam
THE ACCUSED, MARIA RESSA, by counsel, respectfully moves to quash ex abundante
cautelaml the Information dated October 29, 2020 (approved on November 10, 2020, filed in court on
November 23, 2020) on the grounds and for the reasons stated below:

1. The Information in this case states that:

"On or about 16 February 2019, accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, publicly and maliciously-with the intention of attacking the honesty, virtue,
honor, integrity, character and reputation of complainant Wilfredo D. Keng, with residence in
Makati City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, and for the purpose of
exposing him to hatred and contempt-impute a crime, vice or defect to complainant and
publish, through a computer system and with the use of information and

THE AVERMENTS, IF TRUE,

WOULD CONSTITUTE A
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION.

The cautionary notice is served because accused maintains her position that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's
pronouncement in Disini u. Secretary of Justice, the criminal offences of libel and Cyberlibel are unconstitutional for being in
violation of the guarantees of freedom of expression, speech, and of the press; and, in addition, accused maintains her position
that said criminal offenses violate international standards, in particular Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
 17.Under Rule 117, Sec 3(h), an Information must be quashed if it contains averments which, if
true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification. Under Article 11, 55 of the Revised Penal Code, an
act is legally justified if the same is performed in the lawful exercise of a right.

18. Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, of expression,
and of the press. As a journalist, a Filipino, and as a human being, accused enjoys this guarantee.

19. While libel has been held to be unprotected speech, accused submits that a suit for libel or
cyberlibel cannot be maintained or pursued where the act constitutes part of a right or duty.

20. As a citizen and as a journalist, accused enjoys the protection of the Constitution which
guarantees her freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, and as a journalist, freedom of the press. The
only limitations are those imposed by law and the decisions of the Supreme Court. Keeping people
informed, using any platform at her disposal (in this case, Twitter), is part of her duty as a journalist;
certainly, the non-defamatory statement she wrote to inform people following her on Twitter falls under
the exercise of her right under Article III, section 4 of the 1987 Constitution and cannot form the basis for
this charge.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, for the reasons presented, the Information against
accused be QUASHED.

Other just and equitable reliefs appropriate under the circumstances are also prayed for.

Quezon City for Makati City; 2 December 2020.

FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP(FLAG)

Counsel for Accused Maria Ressa
2nd Floor, Eastside Building
77 Malakas Street, Quezon City
Email: flag.metromanila@gmail.com

JOSE MANUEL I. DIOKNO

ARNO V. SANIDAD
THEODORE O. TE