live coverage pres cory aquino's libel case 1991.doc

7/28/2019 Live Coverage Pres Cory Aquino's Libel Case 1991.doc

1/5

EN BANC RESOLUTION October 22,1991

Gentlemen

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court En Banc datedOctober 22, 1991.

Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. Aquino'sLibel Case.

February 11, 1991 was no ordinary day for he Regional Trial Court of Manila,particularly branch 35 thereof. Calendared for hearing that day was Criminal CaseNo. 88-61915, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Luis Beltran," and scheduled totestify for the prosecution was no less than Her Excellency, President CorazonAquino.

Upon prior permission sought and obtained by Presiding Judge Ramon Makasiar, the

hearing was held at the session hall of the Manila City Council to accommodate thelarge audience. The proceedings were telecast live by several television stations,Judge Makasiar having granted on February 7, 1991 the request of Ms. Ida F. Vargasof the Presidential Broadcast Staff to televise the proceedings in said case.

The day after the trial, Sectoral Representative Arturo A. Borjal wrote JusticeMarcelo B. Fernan lamenting the live coverage by several television stations of thecourt proceedings. In his letter, Borjal stated that:

. . . in the United States and other democratic countries, live TV and radiocoverage is strictly prohibited under their Rules of Court. For such practicetends to undermine the integrity of and decorum in judicial proceedings.

Thus, Borjal requested:

for a reaction to this letter so that, if deemed necessary, I could initiate theremedial legislation.

On February 14, 1991, the Supreme Court En Banc required Judge Makasiar tocomment on the letter of Congressman Borjal. Complying therewith, Judge Makasiarstated at the outset that "he had never asked, invited or requested any media manwhether print, broadcast, or telecast, to cover the Court'sproceedings." 1 When a representative from Malacaang sought permission totelevise the proceedings, he granted the request on the condition "that only theusual video footages would be taken of the proceedings for news purposes." 2 Itturned out that the entire proceedings was telecast live to the public.

Nonetheless, Judge Makasiar remarked that he "was not aware of any law, rule ofcourt, or Supreme Court decision, guideline or declared policy, vis--vis, the live TVand radio coverage of court trials. However, sections 4, 7 and 14 (2) of the Bill ofRights (Article III) of the 1987 Constitution guarantee the freedom of speech, ofexpression, and of the press; the right of the people to information on matters of


2/5

public concern; and the right of the accused to public trial, respectively. The impliedsuggestion of Congressman Borjal to ban live TV and radio coverage of court trialsmay be offensive to these constitutional freedoms and rights." 3

He further observed that "the justice system in the Philippines cannot be comparedwith that of the United States which adopts the jury system. Members of the jury

are laymen, some of whom with low education, and therefore easily influenced byemotion, sentiments, comments of other people, and other human frailties. In thePhilippines, justice is administered by judges who are learned in the law ofevidence, and are constitutionally mandated to state clearly and distinctly the factsand the law on which their pronouncements and judgment are based." 4

To stress his point, Judge Makasiar cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision in thecase, "Richmond Newspaper, Inc. et al. vs. Virginia, et al" 5 which, among others,stated that "a trial courtroom is a public place where the people and therepresentatives of media, generally, have a right to be present, and where theirpresence has been historically thought to enhance the integrity and the quality ofwhat takes place."

The response to the letter of Congressman Borjal should not be to strictlyprohibit live TV and radio coverage of judicial proceedings but to prescriberules and guidelines for electronics media coverage of court trials," thussubmitted Judge Makasiar. He further suggested that an ad hoc committee beformed to draft the necessary rules and guidelines on this matter forsubmission and consideration of the Supreme Court En Banc. 6

The propriety of granting or denying permission to the media to broadcast, record,or photograph court proceedings involves weighing the constitutional guarantees offreedom of the press, 7 the right of the public to information 8 and the right to

public trial, 9 on the one hand, and on the other hand, the due process rights of thedefendant 10 and the inherent and constitutional power of the courts to controltheir proceedings in order to permit the fair and impartial administration of

justice. 11 Collaterally, it also raises issues in the nature of media, particularlytelevision and its role in society, and of the impact of new technologies on law.

The records of the Constitutional Commission are bereft of discussion regarding thesubject of cameras in the courtroom. Similarly, Philippine courts have not had theopportunity to rule on the questions squarely.

While we take notice of the September 1990 report 12 of the United States JudicialConference Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom, still the current rule

obtaining in the Federal Courts of the United States prohibits the presence oftelevision cameras in criminal trials. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of CriminalProcedure forbids the taking of photographs during the progress of judicialproceedings or radio broadcasting of such proceedings from the courtroom. A trialof any kind or in any court is a matter of serious importance to all concerned andshould not be treated as a means of entertainment. To so treat it deprives the courtof the dignity which pertains to it and departs from the orderly and serious quest fortruth for which our judicial proceedings are formulated.


3/5

Courts do not discriminate against radio and television media by forbidding thebroadcasting or televising of a trial while permitting the newspaper reporter accessto the courtroom, since a television or news reporter has the same privilege, as thenews reporter is not permitted to bring his typewriter or printing press into thecourtroom. 13

In Estes vs. Texas, 14 the United States Supreme Court held that televisioncoverage of judicial proceedings involves an inherent denial of the due processrights of a criminal defendant. Voting 5-4, the Court through Mr. Justice Clark,identified four (4) areas of potential prejudice which might arise from the impact ofthe cameras on the jury, witnesses, the trial judge and the defendant. The decisionin part pertinently stated:

Experience likewise has established the prejudicial effect of telecasting onwitnesses. Witnesses might be frightened, play to the camera, or becomenervous. They are subject to extraordinary out-of-court influences whichmight affect their testimony. Also, telecasting not only increases the trial

judge's responsibility to avoid actual prejudice to the defendant, it may aswell affect his own performance. Judges are human beings also and aresubject to the same psychological reactions as laymen. For the defendant,telecasting is a form of mental harassment and subjects him to excessivepublic exposure and distracts him from the effective presentation of hisdefense.

The television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionally orinadvertently can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public.

Representatives of the press have no special standing to apply for a writ of mandateto compel a court to permit them to attend a trial, since within the courtroom a

reporter's constitutional rights are no greater than those of any other member ofthe public. 15 massive intrusion of representatives of the news media into the trialitself can also alter or destroy the constitutionally necessary judicial atmosphereand decorum that the requirements impartiality imposed by due process of law aredenied the defendant 16 and a defendant in a criminal proceeding should not beforced to run a gauntlet of reporters and photographers each time he enters orleaves the courtroom. 17

Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendant's right to due process as well asto the fair and orderly administration of justice and considering further that thefreedom of the press and the right of the people to information may be served andsatisfied by less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means, live radio and

television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed. Video footages ofcourt hearings for news purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of thecourtroom, the judicial officers, the parties and their counsel taken prior to thecommencement of official proceedings. No video shots or photographs shall bepermitted during the trial proper.

ACCORDINGLY, in order to protect the parties' right to due process, to prevent thedistraction of the participants in the proceedings and in the last analysis, to avoidmiscarriage of justice, the Court Resolved to PROHIBIT live radio and television


4/5

coverage of court proceedings. Video footages of court hearings for news purposesshall be limited and restricted as above indicated. Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.

Very truly yours,

DANIEL T. MARTINEZClerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNOAssistant Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1 page 1, Comment.

2 page 2, Ibid.

3 page 3, Ibid.

4 page 5, Ibid.

5 448 U.S. 555, July 2, 1980.

6 pp. 6-7, Ibid.

7 Sec. 4, Article III, 1987 Constitution.

8 Sec. 7, Art. III, Ibid.

9 Sec. 14 (2), Article III, Ibid.

10 Sec. 14 (1), Article III, Ibid.

11 Sec. 5, par. 5, Article VIII, Ibid.

12 The United States Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Camerasrecommended that:

[a] the existing ban on cameras in the courtroom be stricken from theCode of Conduct for United States Judges (Canon 3A [7]) andhenceforth policy on the subject be included in the Guides to JudiciaryPolicies and Procedures; and

[b] a policy statement be adopted expanding the permissible use ofcameras and other electronic means to include ceremonial


5/5

proceedings, for perpetuation of the record, for security purposes, andfor other purposes of judicial administration.

13 75 Am Jur 2d p. 156.

14 381 U.S. 532.

15 Oxnard Publishing Co. vs. Superior Court of Ventura County (Cal App) 68Cal Rptr 83, hear gr by Sup Ct. app dismd.

16 Hilliard vs. Arizona (CA9 Ariz) 362 F2d 908.

17 Seymour vs. United States (CA5 Tex) 373 F2d 629.

live coverage pres cory aquino's libel case 1991.doc

Documents