Rappler Holdings Corp. vs. Trial Court of Pasig

DOCTRINE: The right to travel is guaranteed by the Constitution and a cyber libel conviction alone is not sufficient justification for a court a quo to prevent a person from attending to professional engagements outside the country. However, the right to travel may be impaired in the interest of public health under Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and to add to that, the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act and the Bayanihan to Recover as One Act have restricted local and foreign travels.

FACTS: This case is a motion for certiorari against Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 157 Judge Ana Teresa Cornejo-Tomacruz for alleged grave abuse of discretion  amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for having rejected Maria Ressa’s, Rappler’s Chief Executive Officer, request to travel.

Ressa, who is facing several tax evasion charges, requested permission to leave the country from August 1 to 30, 2020 to support the release of the documentary “A Thousand Cuts,” to attend as a speaker in various journalism and filmmaking conferences, to record promotional materials for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and other interviews, and to attend film festival panels in Boston. The request was denied by the Pasig RTC. After the local court’s initial denial, Ressa moved the dates for her travel to August 23 to September 10. The investigative reporter argued that the RTC decision violated her constitutional right to travel.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Judge Ana Teresa Cornejo-Tomacruz committed grave abuse of discretion  amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Ressa’s request to travel.

2. Whether the denial violated her constitutional right to travel.

RULING: NO to both. The CTA held that as of the filing of the last pleading on October 19, the case is already moot and the necessity of the travel raised has already lapsed. It also held that Ressa failed to establish that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, noting that the Pasig court’s denial of the motion to travel is not unfounded.

The CTA stressed that the right to travel is not absolute and may be impaired in the interest of public health under Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and maybe curtailed by law, citing two laws that were enacted in response to the pandemic: the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act on March 24, 2020 and the Bayanihan to Recover as One Act on September 11, 2020. The said laws granted sweeping powers that are necessary and proper to carry out the declared national policy to President Rodrigo Duterte, which paved the way for the regulation and limitation of the operation of all sectors of transportation. 

It also noted that from December 2018 until March 2020, Ressa was allowed to attend professional engagements abroad, but circumstances changed and travel restrictions were implemented because of the pandemic.

It said the RTC resolution pertains to a limited and specific period and does not prohibit her from filing the same motion when the health crisis subsides.

CA vs. CTA – CONTRASTING RULINGS

The CTA ruling differs from the Court of Appeals’ previous denial of Ressa’s bid to travel for the same period. 

The CA is handling Ressa’s appeal of her June 15 conviction for cyber libel.

In affirming its ruling not to allow Ressa to travel, the CA Special Fourteenth Division, through Associate Justice Geraldine Fiel-Macaraig, said in August that her bail operates as a valid restriction” to her right to travel and her conviction warrants the exercise of greater caution even if it is not yet final.

In contrast, the CTA said to withhold permission to travel throughout the duration of the trial or the case is certainly excessive. Petitioner’s conviction in the Cyber Libel case alone is not sufficient justification for the court a quo to prevent her from attending to her professional engagements outside the country.

The CTA also noted that Ressa submitted herself to the trial court’s jurisdiction when she posted bail. Trial of the case can also proceed through videoconference, following the Supreme Court’s circular issued amid the pandemic. It went on and said that Ressa may be abroad but can still attend a virtual hearing.

Despite these pronouncements, the CTA did not overturn the Pasig court’s decision to deny the travel plea.

But it clarified that Ressa could still be allowed to travel on other occasions when the travel restrictions ease up, depending on the trial court’s assessment of the evolving situation.