Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler (R-MNL-19-01141-CR), also known as the Maria Ressa cyberlibel case, is a high-profile criminal case in the Philippines, lodged against Maria Ressa, co-owner and CEO of Rappler Inc.. [2] Accused of cyberlibel, Ressa was found guilty by a Manila Regional Trial Court on June 15, 2020. [3] [4]: 36
An award-winning journalist who has aggressively covered Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration is bracing for a verdict in a libel case and says she sees the upcoming decision as ...
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines en banc: Full case name; Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., Rowena S. Disini, Lianne Ivy P. Medina, Janette Toral and Ernesto Sonido, Jr., vs. the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the Executive Director of the Information and Communications Technology Office, the Chief of the Philippine National Police ...
There was a rise in libel and cyber libel cases in the country in 2020, according to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP). [19] Rappler CEO Maria Ressa was among those convicted of cyber libel in a 2020 case involving the retroactive application of a then new cybercrime law to an article that had been published years ...
An award-winning journalist critical of the Philippine president was convicted of libel and sentenced to jail Monday in a decision called a major blow to press freedom in an Asian bastion of ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
On May 10, 2024, Sharon Cuneta and Francis Pangilinan filed five counts of cyberlibel case with the Makati Prosecutors Office against Fermin for an alleged defamation centering on the couple's "personal and family affairs.” [8] In Cristy FerMinute, Fermin replied thereto - “Territorial po 'yan, 'cyber libel' -- it comes with the territory ...
The case originated from a petition of an individual, convicted in a libel case in connection with a Facebook post made in 2011, who argued that such remarks should not be punishable with the case. Since the post was made a year prior to the passage of the law, the court decided that the accused cannot be charged of libel, emphasizing that ...