THE complainant is not President Duterte or any member of his family. He is not even a public official or employee, at least not during the time that the allegedly libelous article was published. So why do many see government’s hand in the arrest of Rappler CEO Maria Ressa last Wednesday?

There are many reasons. One, Rappler has been and continues to be critical of the Duterte administration. Malacañang has expressed displeasure over Rappler’s reporting many times and in so many ways, including banning the news outlet from covering the Palace and causing the filing of at least two other cases against it and Ressa.

Two, the revival of the cyber libel complaint raises serious questions, especially in the minds of those who are not familiar with legal proceedings. The Department of Justice is an agency of the executive department, its secretary, the President’s subordinate. Is the DOJ’s decision finding probable cause against Ressa not part of the overall scheme to harass her and her organization?

Three, the timing of her arrest denied Ressa the opportunity to post bail. It is true that a warrant of arrest can be served anytime of day, but given the President’s open and public dislike of Rappler, one cannot help wondering if arresting her at 5 p.m. was done to make sure that she spent at least one night in detention. That, as her lawyer claimed, the warrant did not state the amount of bail also gives the impression that the document was hurriedly done so much so that a very important and material detail has been omitted, especially since the offense that she has been charged with is bailable.

In fairness to everyone, the DOJ resolution that found Ressa and the Rappler reporter who wrote the allegedly defamatory article probably guilty of cyberlibel was not issued the day before her arrest. The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported it last week, so the filing of the information in court and subsequent issuance of the arrest order were hardly unexpected.

Also, as anyone who has completed units in criminal procedure knows, a dismissal at the level of the prosecutor’s office, including the DOJ, does not give rise to double jeopardy. The reported dismissal of the complaint against Ressa by the NBI is therefore inconsequential because if the DOJ can reverse itself, then it can with much more reason the NBI.

The ground for the reversal is, however, interesting. The NBI in effect said that no cyberlibel was committed against the complainant Wilfredo Keng because at the time that the article that he complained of was published, the crime of cyberlibel was not found in our penal statutes. Rappler “updated” the article, however, when our cyber law was in effect, and the DOJ says Rappler and Ressa can now be held liable for the update.

Malacañang, as expected, denied that it orchestrated Ressa’s arrest even as several local and international press associations decry it as politically motivated. No one so far has bothered to ask if the disputed article was indeed libelous or not.

A simple case of a truly wronged man seeking judicial relief or of the administration marshalling its resources to persecute an enemy? If only Duterte has been more tolerant towards his media and other critics.