re petition for live coverage

7/28/2019 Re Petition for Live Coverage

1/4

I. Re: Petition for radio and television coverage of the multiple murder casesagainst Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, et al.,

A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC/A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC/A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC. June 14, 2011.

Right to fair trial v. freedom of the press. Right to fair trial v. freedom of the press. Prejudicial

publicity insofar as it undermines the right to a fair trial must pass the totality of circumstances

test that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press, that pervasivepublicity is notper se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair trial, and that there must be

allegation and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision.

FACTS: On November 23, 2009, 57 people including 32 journalists and media practitioners werekilled on their way to Shariff Aguak in Maguindanao. This tragic incident came to be known as

Maguindanao massacre spawned charges for 57 counts of murder and additional charges ofrebellion against 197 accused. Almost a year later on November 19 2010, the National Union of

Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, GMA Network Inc.,

relatives of the victims, individual journalists from various media entities and members of theacademe filed a petition before this court praying that live television and radio coverage of

the trial in this criminal cases be allowed, recording devises be permitted inside the court

room to assist the working journalists, and reasonable guidelines be formulated to govern

the broadcast coverage and the use of devices.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for radio and television coverage of the Maguindanao Massacre

should be allowed.

HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The Court partially grantspro hac vice petitioners prayer for a live broadcast

of the trial court proceedings, subject to certain guidelines as enumerated. The present petition

which asserts the exercise of the freedom of the press, right to information, right to a fair and public

trial, right to assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievances, right of free accessto courts, and freedom of association, subject to regulations to be issued by the Court. Respecting

the possible influence of media coverage on the impartiality of trial court judges, petitionerscorrectly explain that prejudicial publicity insofar as it undermines the right to a fair trial must pass

the totality of circumstances test, applied in People v. Teehankee, Jr. and Estrada v. Desierto, that the

right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press, thatpervasive publicity isnot per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair trial, and that there must be allegation

and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. Mere fear of possibleundue influence is not tantamount to actual prejudice resulting in the deprivation of the right to a

fair trial.Moreover, an aggrieved party has ample legal remedies. He may challenge the validity of an

adverse judgment arising from a proceeding that transgressed a constitutional right. As pointedout by petitioners, an aggrieved party may early on move for a change of venue, for continuance

until the prejudice from publicity is abated, for disqualification of the judge, and for closure of

portions of the trial when necessary. The trial court may likewise exercise its power of contemptand issue gag orders.

Furthermore, the court held that the impossibility of holding such judicial proceedings in a

courtroom that will accommodate all the interested parties, whether private complainants or

accused, is unfortunate enough. What more if the right itself commands that a reasonable number

of the general public be allowed to witness the proceeding as it takes place inside the

courtroom. Technology tends to provide the only solution to break the inherent limitations of the

courtroom, to satisfy the imperative of a transparent, open and public trial.


2/4

II. Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the PlunderCases Against the Former President Joseph E. Estrada.

A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 248; Perez v. Estrada, 412 Phil. 686

(2001). JUSTICE VITUG

FACTS: The travails of a deposed President continue. The Sandiganbayan reels to start hearing thecriminal charges against Mr. Joseph E. Estrada. Media seeks to cover the event via live television

and live radio broadcast and endeavors this Court to allow it that kind of access to the proceedings.

On 13 March 2001, the Kapisanan ng mga BroadKaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), an association

representing duly franchised and authorized television and radio networks throughout the country,sent a letter requesting this Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the

plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. Estrada before theSandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an

unprecedented case in our history." The request was seconded by Mr. Cesar N. Sarino in his letter of

05 April 2001 to the Chief Justice and, still later, by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney RicardoRomulo. On 17 April 2001, the Honorable Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez formally filed the

instant petition,3 submitting the following exegesis: "The foregoing criminal cases involve theprevious acts of the former highest official of the land, members of his family, his cohorts and,

therefore, it cannot be over emphasized that the prosecution thereof, definitely involves a matter ofpublic concern and interest, or a matter over which the entire citizenry has the right to know, be

informed and made aware of. "There is no gainsaying that the constitutional right of the people to

be informed on matters of public concern, as in the instant cases, can best be recognized, served

and satisfied by allowing the live radio and television coverage of the concomitant court

proceedings. "Moreover, the live radio and television coverage of the proceedings will also serve

the dual purpose of ensuring the desired transparency in the administration of justice in order to

disabuse the minds of the supporters of the past regime of any and all unfounded notions, or ill-

perceived attempts on the part of the present dispensation, to railroad the instant criminal casesagainst the Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada." Public interest, the petition further averred,

should be evident bearing in mind the right of the public to vital information affecting the nation.

ISSUE: (1) Whether or not to grant the request for Radio-TV coverage of the trial of in the

Sandiganbayan of the plunder cases against the former president Joseph E. Estrada.

RULING: DENIED. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional guarantees of freedom ofthe press and the right to public information outweigh the fundamental rights of the accused along

with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartialtrial. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure forbids the taking of photographs during

the progress of judicial proceedings or radio broadcasting of such proceedings from the courtroom.A trial of any kind or in any court is a matter of serious importance to all concerned and should not

be treated as a means of entertainment. To so treat it DEPRIVES THE COURT OF THE DIGNITY

which pertains to it and departs from the orderly and serious quest for truth for which our judicialproceedings are formulated. With the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also the

very life of an accused, it behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict

solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment, a verdict that would come only after the

presentation of credible evidence testified to by unbiased witnesses unswayed by any kind of

pressure, whether open or subtle, in proceedings that are devoid of histrionics that might detract

from its basic aim to ferret veritable facts free from improper influence, and decreed by a judge

with an unprejudiced mind, unbridled by running emotions or passions. An accused has a RIGHT

TO A PUBLIC TRIAL BUT IT IS A RIGHT THAT BELONGS TO HIM, more than anyone else, where his


3/4

life or liberty can be held critically in balance. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt

with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secrete

conclaves of long ago. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial; it only implies that the

court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in the available seats, conduct themselves

with decorum and observe the trial process. In the constitutional sense, a courtroom should have

enough facilities for a reasonable number of the public to observe the proceedings, not too small as

to render the openness negligible and not too large as to distract the trial participants from theirproper functions, who shall then be totally free to report what they have observed during the

proceedings

Source: http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1752847-case-digest-secretary-justice-vs/

III. Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. AquinosLibel Case. October 22, 1991. Court En Banc Resolution

Facts: The proceedings of the libel case against Luis Beltran (People v Luis Beltran) where PresidentAquino testified for the prosecution were telecast live by several television stations, Judge Makasiar

having granted the request of Ms. Ida F. Vargas of the Presidential Broadcast Staff to televise theproceedings in said case. Representative Arturo A. Borjal wrote Justice Marcelo B. Fernan

lamenting the live coverage by several television stations of the court proceedings. He asked for areaction to his letter.

Issue: WON live media coverage be allowed during court proceedings.

Held: No. The current rule obtaining in the Federal Courts of the United States prohibits the

presence of television cameras in criminal trials. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

forbids the taking of photographs during the progress of judicial proceedings or radio broadcasting

of such proceedings from the courtroom. A trial of any kind or in any court is a matter of seriousimportance to all concerned and should not be treated as a means of entertainment. To so treat it

deprives the court of the dignity which pertains to it and departs from the orderly and serious questfor truth for which our judicial proceedings are formulated.

Courts do not discriminate against radio and television media by forbidding the broadcasting or

televising of a trial while permitting the newspaper reporter access to the courtroom, since a

television or news reporter has the same privilege, as the news reporter is not permitted to bringhis typewriter or printing press into the courtroom.

The television coverage of judicial proceedings involves an inherent denial of the due process rights

of a criminal defendant (Estes vs. Texas). Massive intrusion of representatives of the news mediainto the trial itself can also alter or destroy the constitutionally necessary judicial atmosphere and

decorum that the requirements impartiality imposed by due process of law are denied the

defendant and a defendant in a criminal proceeding should not be forced to run a gauntlet ofreporters and photographers each time he enters or leaves the courtroom.

Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendants right to due process as well as to the fair and

orderly administration of justice and considering further that the freedom of the press and the right

of the people to information may be served and satisfied by less distracting, degrading and

prejudicial means, live radio and television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed.

Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of the
http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1752847-case-digest-secretary-justice-vs/http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1752847-case-digest-secretary-justice-vs/


4/4

courtroom, the judicial officers, the parties and their counsel taken prior to the commencement of

official proceedings. No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during the trial proper.

re petition for live coverage

Documents