TWO prominent and respected Filipino journalists are questioning the intervention of Solicitor General Marlene Berberabe in the libel case of Maria Ressa now pending before the Supreme Court where Berberabe cited a previous court ruling to justify the case’s dismissal. The ruling, however, is the subject of an appeal by her own office.
Brief backgrounder
In June 2020, Ressa, founder on online news ‘Rappler’ and Reynaldo Santos, Rappler “researcher” cum reporter, were convicted by the Manila Regional Trial Court for cyberlibel in a complaint filed in 2017 by businessman Wilfredo Keng (see also Pinoy Exposé, June 15, 2020).
The assailed article claimed that Keng is involved in criminal activities while being a friend of then Chief Justice Renato Corona whom the Noynoy Aquino administration wants removed thru an impeachment trial at the Senate.
Rappler is a close ally of the administration and allowed itself to be used as part of the media entities demonizing the Chief Justice.
Ressa and Santos’ conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and is presently pending at the Supreme Court for final decision.
During the trial, Berberabe has served as one of the counsels of Ressa.
In her intervention before the tribunal on behalf of Ressa, Berberabe claimed she is doing so in the OSG’s role as ‘Tribune of the People.’
‘Discourteous, not polite’
The first to air dissatisfaction over Berberabe’s intervention is Philippine Star columnist Alex Magno who, in his column last March 21 described the SolGen’s intervention as being “discourteous” to the SC magistrates.
“Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe is being discourteous to the Supreme Court. She invoked a case still being reviewed en banc in an effort to trash the case against her friend,” Magno wrote.
Magno noted that Berberabe’s defense is anchored on a pending case for cyberlibel (Causing vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. 258524, October 11, 2023), that was decided by the SC Third Division in favor of the petitioner, Bertino Causing.
The decision, penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, ruled that the prescriptive period for the filing of a cyberlibel complaint is one year from the date of the discovery of an assailed article.
But as Magno pointed out, the ruling on the Causing petition “was made by just one division of the Supreme Court” and that a motion for reconsideration was filed by the OSG itself assailing the ruling.
“Notwithstanding the earlier ruling is still being considered by the whole Court, Berberabe invokes it in a case to be decided by the same Court.
“She is not being very polite here,” Magno pointed out.
No jurisprudence yet
The prescriptive period for the filing of a cyberlibel remains unsettled until ruled with finality by the Supreme Court sitting Enbanc and it becomes part of the country’s jurisprudence.
Magno pointed out that this is explicit under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the 1987 Constitution which states that “no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc.”
“By the command of the Constitution, the Causing ruling is now being considered by the whole Court. Berberabe is preempting the tribunal,” Magno pointed out further.
Berberabe’s petition also glossed over a previous ruling by the SC First Division in 2018 (Tolentino vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. 240310, August 6, 2018) penned by Associate Justice Leonardo de Castro. The decision found against the petitioner and set the prescriptive period to file a cyberlibel complaint to 15 years.
Magno also pointed out that as a former lawyer for Ressa, “a case of conflict of interest may be raised against the Solicitor General.”
“In her current post, Berberabe is expected to represent government, not personal friends, before the courts,” he added.
‘Shocking, anomalous’
Two days later, on March 23, using harsh language that he is known for, former press secretary and ambassador Rigoberto ‘Bobi’ Tiglao, in his own column at The Manila Times and his own website, described Berberabe’s intervention on behalf of Ressa as “shocking as it is anomalous.”
“In a move as shocking as it is anomalous, Solicitor General Marlene Berberabe asked the Supreme Court on March 6 to reverse the 2020 conviction by the Manila Regional Trial Court — affirmed unanimously by the three-man Court of Appeals in 2022 — of Rappler CEO Maria Ressa for cyberlibel in a suit filed by a businessman in 2017.”
Aside from discussing the points earlier raised by Magno, Tiglao also alleged that Berberabe is using her position to lawyer on behalf of Ressa before the Supreme Court.
“…Berberabe thinks her position as Solicitor General can get the Supreme Court justices to reverse the Manila Regional Trial Court’s decision, upheld by the Court of Appeals.
“Such naivete is obviously due to the fact that Berberabe has had practically no experience in the legal world, having been corporate lawyer for foreign firms and CEO of Pag-Ibig Fund during President Aquino III’s administration.”
Tiglao also reminded everyone that the Office of the Solicitor General is the “sole” lawyer of the Republic and not a lawyer for a private individual, much less a foreigner like Ressa.
“The SolGen is the sole lawyer of the Republic of the Philippines that represents it in all court cases.
“It has never represented a private individual — much less a US citizen whose official residence is in New York,” Tiglao said.
“For the SolGen to go to Ressa’s aid would be as scandalous as (the SolGen) asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Sandiganbayan’s conviction of pork-barrel mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles, who has also filed an appeal at the Court.
“What makes my blood boil is that the Office of the Solicitor General is funded by the state’s budget, from taxpayers’ money: I and you, reader, are in effect paying for the legal defense of this US citizen,” Tiglao said.
“By asking for Ressa’s acquittal based on a doctrine still under review, the SolGen claimed as jurisprudence the one favoring her friend before the Supreme Court has completed its deliberations.
“This is an intrusion into the court’s domain, a display of total disrespect by the executive branch’s sole lawyer toward the highest court of the land.
“What is troubling in the Ressa case is that because of her propaganda that hers is a case of press suppression, she has managed to recruit American press-freedom crusaders to put pressure first on the lower courts, and now on the Supreme Court itself,” Tiglao pointed out further.