A CASE STUDY
Description: The researcher limits the study within the Philippine context. It focuses on discussing the dilemma of media practitioners in both television and radio broadcast in covering any judicial hearing. The researcher will give you a clear view as to why Supreme Court has the right to declare allowing or disallowing television and radio live coverage during judicial hearing. Though, media practitioners have the right to equal access of information and have the right to disseminate the information to the public but why there are instances that need to be considered by media practitioners and in fact, it limits which information should only be aired on public. The researcher will give a sample cases in relation to Supreme Court’s right to control in the dissemination of information.
Issues: There’s a question of the media practitioners to Supreme Court’s right in controlling the television and radio live coverage during any judicial hearing in the dissemination of information. If you ask media networks, they will just simply replied that this is the right of the people to equal access of information but for Supreme Court, they are just respecting the individual rights of any party involved in such hearing to simply value the right to equal protection and due process of law.
Commentaries: In terms of giving analysis and commentaries, the researcher will give a sample cases referring to court en banc resolution wherein the Supreme Court releases its order to media networks in disallowing and allowing the dissemination of information specifically denoting on creating a news story.
First is the live television and radio coverage of the hearing of President Corazon C. Aquino’s libel case against Luis Beltran that prohibits the live media coverage. Based on court en banc resolution dated October 22, 1991 and this case violates the privilege of the public to equal access of information. It was February 11, 1991 that there was a hearing of Aquino’s case in Regional Trial Court of Manila, particularly Branch 35 thereof. Calendared for hearing that day was Criminal Case No. 88-61915, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Luis Beltran," and scheduled to testify for the prosecution was no less than Her Excellency, President Corazon Aquino.
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 the large audience. The proceedings were telecast live by several television stations, Judge Makasiar having granted on February 7, 1991 the request of Ms. Ida F. Vargas of the Presidential Broadcast Staff to televise the proceedings in said case. The day after the trial, Sectoral Representative Arturo A. Borjal wrote Justice Marcelo B. Fernan lamenting the live coverage by several television stations of the court proceedings. In his letter, Borjal stated that in the United States and other democratic countries, live TV and radio coverage is strictly prohibited under their Rules of Court. For such practice tends to undermine the integrity of and decorum in judicial proceedings. Thus, Borjal requested for a reaction to this letter so that, if deemed necessary, he could initiate the remedial legislation. On February 14, 1991, the Supreme Court En Banc required Judge Makasiar to comment on the letter of Congressman Borjal. Complying therewith, Judge Makasiar stated at the outset that he had never asked, invited or requested any media man whether print, broadcast, or telecast, to cover the Court’s proceedings. When a representative from Malacañang sought permission to televise the proceedings, he granted the request on the condition that only the usual video footages would be taken of the proceedings for news purposes. It turned out that the entire proceedings was telecast live to the public. Nonetheless, Judge Makasiar remarked that he was not aware of any law, rule of court, or Supreme Court decision, guideline or declared policy, vis-à-vis, the live TV and radio coverage of court trials. However, Sections 4, 7 and 14 (2) of the Bill of Rights (Article III) of the 1987 Constitution guarantee the freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press; the right of the people to information on matters of public concern; and the right of the accused to public trial, respectively. The implied suggestion of Congressman Borjal to ban live TV and radio coverage of court trials may be offensive to these constitutional freedoms and rights. He further observed that the justice system in the Philippines cannot be compared with 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 by emotion, sentiments, comments of other people, and other human frailties. In the Philippines, justice is administered by judges who are learned in the law of evidence, and are constitutionally mandated to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which their pronouncements and judgment are based. To stress his point, Judge Makasiar cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case, "Richmond Newspaper, Inc. et al. vs. Virginia, et al. which, among others, stated that a trial courtroom is a public place where the people and the representatives of media, generally, have a right to be present, and where their presence has been historically thought to enhance the integrity and the quality of what takes place. The response to the letter of Congressman Borjal should not be to strictly prohibit live TV and radio coverage of judicial proceedings but to prescribe rules and guidelines for electronics media coverage of court trials, thus submitted Judge Makasiar. He further suggested that an ad hoc committee be formed to draft the necessary rules and guidelines on this matter for submission and consideration of the Supreme Court En Banc.
The propriety of granting or denying permission to the media to broadcast, record, or photograph court proceedings involves weighing the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, the right of the public to information and the right to public trial, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the due process rights of the defendant and the inherent and constitutional power of the courts to control their proceedings in order to permit the fair and impartial administration of justice. Collaterally, it also raises issues in the nature of media, particularly television 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 the subject of cameras in the courtroom. Similarly, Philippine courts have not had the opportunity to rule on the questions squarely.
While we take notice of the September 1990 report of the United States Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom, still 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 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 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 bring his typewriter or printing press into the courtroom. In Estes vs. Texas, the United States Supreme Court held that television coverage of judicial proceedings involves an inherent denial of the due process rights 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 of the cameras on the jury, witnesses, the trial judge and the defendant. The decision in part pertinently stated that the experience likewise has established the prejudicial effect of telecasting on witnesses. Witnesses might be frightened, play to the camera, or become nervous. They are subject to extraordinary out-of-court influences which might affect their testimony. Also, telecasting not only increases the trial judge’s responsibility to avoid actual prejudice to the defendant, it may as well affect his own performance. Judges are human beings also and are subject to the same psychological reactions as laymen. For the defendant, telecasting is a form of mental harassment and subjects him to excessive public exposure and distracts him from the effective presentation of his defense. The television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionally or inadvertently can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public."
Second case is the hearing multiple murder case of Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan Jr. et al., in a resolution dated June 14, 2011 allowing the live TV and radio coverage of a criminal case. Though subject to several conditions and though applicable pro hac vice (this time only) to the multiple murder case of Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan Jr. et al., this resolution marks the first time that the highest court has authorized the live broadcast of a courtroom drama.
Absolute ban. In the past, the Court uniformly prohibited such media access. Thus, on October 22, 1991, the Court unanimously denied the live coverage of the libel case filed by then President Cory Aquino. As authority, it cited the US Supreme Court decision in “Estes v. Texas” (decided by a close 5-4 vote) forbidding television cameras in criminal trials. The ban was reiterated 10 years later in a resolution, dated June 29, 2001 penned by Justice Jose C. Vitug, in the plunder case filed against President Joseph Estrada. Voting 8-6 with one justice on leave, the Court flatly denied the live TV-radio coverage of this sensational case. Later, acting on a motion for reconsideration and after Estrada offered no objections, the tribunal in a resolution dated Sept. 13, 2001, relaxed the ban and allowed cameras but only for documentary purposes, not live, real-time broadcast. The Court banned live coverage mainly because of “the prejudice it poses to the defendant’s right to due process and to the fair and orderly administration of justice”; while stressing, on the other hand, that “the right of the people to information may be served and satisfied by less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means.”
As a broadcaster before, I have given the right to attend and witness a trial or hearing, especially if criminal in nature, under the constitutional principles of transparency, and of free, open and public hearing of cases. However, given the limitation of time and space in a courtroom, it is not always possible to physically accommodate all persons interested in witnessing a court hearing.
First time ever after another ten years from the Estrada decision comes the present unanimous Resolution, written by Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, granting pro hac vice the live broadcast of the Ampatuan multiple murder case. The Court stressed that unlike the Aquino and Estrada cases, the “Maguindanao Massacre” involves the “impossibility of accommodating even the parties to the case—the private complainants/families of the victims and other witnesses—inside the courtroom. Said the Court that the families of the fifty-seven victims and of the one hundred ninety seven accused have as much interest, beyond mere curiosity, to attend and monitor the proceedings as those of the impleaded parties or trial participants” not to mention that “the prosecution and defense have listed more than two hundred witnesses each.As they cannot all be physically accommodated in the limited space of a courthouse but technology is the only solution to satisfy the imperative of a transparent, open and public trial. To maintain decorum and to safeguard the rights of the accused from the intrusive presence of several media cameras, the Court issued several guidelines. First, a single fixed compact camera shall be installed inconspicuously inside the courtroom to provide a single wide-angle full view of the sala of the courtrol with a limited number of microphones. Second, media companies may be interconnected with this single camera with the least physical disturbance. Third, broadcasting for a particular day must be continuous and in it’s entirely with no commercial breaks except during recess, without any voice over and annotations shall observe the sub-judice rule.
The third item is quite stringent. TV time is very expensive. Requiring continuous coverage in the entirety of a trial without any commercial break may be a dampener. But still and all, I welcome this resolution. It recognizes the view articulated in my dissent that “it is now technologically feasible to give our people in their homes and offices the same access to trials as the spectators inside the courthouse” without transgressing the rights of the accused and the dignity of the trial court.
But last November 12, 2012, Supreme Court ruled that it limits the live media broadcast of the Maguindanao massacre trial by putting closed-circuit television camera on the court room. In a resolution released, it stated that the high court partially granted the motion filed by Andal Ampatuan Jr. who told the high court that in allowing the public trial will deprive him of his rights to due process, equal protection, presumption of innocence, and to be shielded from degrading psychological punishment. The high court pointed that constitutional rights specific to the accused such as right to due process of law, right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, right to an impartial and public trial and the requirement of the highest quantum of proof prompted them to take a second look at the high court’s June 2011 decision that allows live media coverage of the trial. It said the rights of the accused are enough justification that “a camera that broadcasts the proceedings live on television has no place in a criminal trial because of its prejudicial effects on the rights of the accused individuals. Relatives of the victims filed a partial reconsideration on the ruling saying it constitutes prior restraint because it tells the media what to do. They said such a condition would produce a “chilling effect” on all forms of expression about the court proceedings. Principal accused Andal Ampatuan Jr. also filed a partial motion for reconsideration saying the high court should be more vigilant in safeguarding his rights as an accused. He argued that the immense publicity and adverse public opinion which the live media coverage can produce would affect everyone including the judge, witnesses for the accused and families of all the parties concerned. It’s because because Ampatuan believed that live media coverage of the trial is cruel and degrading punishment for the accused even before he is convicted by final judgment. In granting Ampatuan’s motion, the high court said the media can still be accommodated during the trial but no live coverage. Instead, it will install closed circuit viewing areas outside the courtroom for those who want to watch the proceedings, similar to what the high court does during oral argument. The high court will also install closed circuit viewing areas in selected trial courts in Maguindanao, Koronadal, South Cotabato and General Santos City where most relatives of the accused and victims reside. Recording will be allowed but only for documentary purposes, the high court said. The original audio-visual recording shall be deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office. The camera will be operated only by the Supreme Court. Aside from the rights of the accused, the high court said the judge and the witnesses must also be protected.
Conclusion: With all due respect, the first case denotes disallowing the media live coverage and the second case resolves the dilemma of media practitioners allowing the live coverage but still limits in favoring the subject person’s motion to court during the hearing and still I don’t know if the third times of hearing, media live coverage will be allowed.
The point here is on discussing as if judicial hearing be privatized or be exposed to the public. In prohibiting the live coverage, it in favor or consider the prejudice it poses to the defendant’s 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. But if exposed to the public, this is to uphold the public interest and not the personal interest and it simply value, the right to be informed.