The Court of Appeals (CA) denied on Wednesday, August 19, the plea of Rappler chief executive officer Maria A. Ressa, who was earlier convicted of cyber libel by the trial court, to travel to the United States until September 18.
(JANSEN ROMERO / FILE PHOTO / MANILA BULLETIN)
Ressa sought permission from the CA since she had filed a notice of appeal on her cyber libel conviction by the Manila regional trial court (RTC).
In her plea to travel abroad, Ressa cited, among other things, her desire to fulfill her commitments and receive an award in the US.
She also told the CA that she was invited by the Executive Producer of Frontline to travel to Boston, Massachusetts to support the release of a documentary.
At the same time, she said she wanted to go to Washington DC for her conferment by the National Press Club of the 2020 International Press Freedom Award as the club’s Honoree on August 24.
She said she will be back in the Philippines on September 19.
But in a resolution issued by its 14th division, the CA denied Ressa’s plea to travel abroad.
“In view of Ressa's failure to prove that her travel to the United States of America is necessary and urgent, there is no basis to grant her motion.
Premises considered, Maria A. Ressa's Very Urgent Motion for Permission to Travel Abroad is Denied," the CA ruled.
The CA pointed out: “While the Constitution guarantees the freedom of movement, it also recognizes that such liberty is not an absolute right. For instance, a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail does not have an unrestricted right to travel because of the necessity of safeguarding the system of justice."
Last June, Manila City RTC Judge Reinelda Estacio Montesa convicted Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. of cyber libel and sentenced each of them to six months up to six years in prison.
Ressa and Santos were also ordered to pay complainant-businessman Wilfredo Keng the amount of P400,000 as moral and exemplary damages.
Their motion to reconsider the trial court’s ruling had been denied. They opted to elevate their case before the CA.