Pasig court clears Ressa, Rappler execs in Anti-Dummy Law case
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
Pasig court clears Ressa, Rappler execs in Anti-Dummy Law case
Veteran journalist and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa poses for photographs after her interview with Karen Davila for "Headstart" in Makati, February 15, 2019. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/File
Veteran journalist and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa poses for photographs after her interview with Karen Davila for "Headstart" in Makati, February 15, 2019. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/FileMANILA — A Pasig court dismissed the Anti-Dummy Law case against Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and five other executives, saying evidence presented of alleged foreign ownership or control of the news website was "grossly insufficient".
MANILA — A Pasig court dismissed the Anti-Dummy Law case against Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and five other executives, saying evidence presented of alleged foreign ownership or control of the news website was "grossly insufficient".
In an 11-page decision, Pasig RTC Branch 152 presiding judge Marie Joyce Manongsong said the court granted the demurrer to evidence filed by the accused.
In an 11-page decision, Pasig RTC Branch 152 presiding judge Marie Joyce Manongsong said the court granted the demurrer to evidence filed by the accused.
Essentially, a demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss by the defense due to insufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution.
Essentially, a demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss by the defense due to insufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution.
With the grant, the case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
With the grant, the case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
ADVERTISEMENT
The decision was penned on June 13 but was made public on June 19.
The decision was penned on June 13 but was made public on June 19.
The case stemmed from Rappler’s sale of Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs) to foreign-owned entity Omidyar Network.
The case stemmed from Rappler’s sale of Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs) to foreign-owned entity Omidyar Network.
In January 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission revoked Rappler’s registration arguing that the sale of PDRs to a foreign entity violated the constitution as it meant that the company is not 100 percent Filipino-owned.
In January 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission revoked Rappler’s registration arguing that the sale of PDRs to a foreign entity violated the constitution as it meant that the company is not 100 percent Filipino-owned.
The Anti-Dummy Law prohibits foreigners from intervening in the management, operation, administration, or control of any nationalized activity.
The Anti-Dummy Law prohibits foreigners from intervening in the management, operation, administration, or control of any nationalized activity.
In 2024, the Court of Appeals reversed the SEC’s ruling that had ordered the shutdown of Rappler.
In 2024, the Court of Appeals reversed the SEC’s ruling that had ordered the shutdown of Rappler.
ADVERTISEMENT
It noted that the SEC order had been a "grave abuse of discretion" and contravened "established procedures, jurisprudential and legal instructions, and clear intent of the Constitution".
It noted that the SEC order had been a "grave abuse of discretion" and contravened "established procedures, jurisprudential and legal instructions, and clear intent of the Constitution".
‘GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT’
In the decision, the court found that the prosecution’s evidence is “grossly insufficient to establish the criminal liability of all of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
In the decision, the court found that the prosecution’s evidence is “grossly insufficient to establish the criminal liability of all of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
“At the outset, the 2018 SEC Decision itself does not clearly establish the individual roles of each of the accused in the transfer of PDRs to Omidyar,” the court stated.
“At the outset, the 2018 SEC Decision itself does not clearly establish the individual roles of each of the accused in the transfer of PDRs to Omidyar,” the court stated.
The court also cited the case of Pua vs. Court of Appeals where the Supreme Court “found no reason to criminally charge the petitioner spouses absent a showing of their actual participation in the illegal sale of land to foreigners”.
The court also cited the case of Pua vs. Court of Appeals where the Supreme Court “found no reason to criminally charge the petitioner spouses absent a showing of their actual participation in the illegal sale of land to foreigners”.
The court said prosecutors did not present evidence "that would clearly show [the nature of the PDRs], and how they were used to give Omidyar a hand in Rappler or RHCI's business." — with a report from Agence France-Presse
The court said prosecutors did not present evidence "that would clearly show [the nature of the PDRs], and how they were used to give Omidyar a hand in Rappler or RHCI's business." — with a report from Agence France-Presse
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
