SC stops live broadcast of press cons

Supreme Court spokesman and chief of the Public Information Office Theodore Te speaks at a televised press conference in Baguio City in April 2014. CBCPNews

MANILA, Philippines - Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te has stopped television and radio reporters from airing live his press conferences, saying it violates the ban on live coverage of court proceedings.

Reporters covering the high court were made to wait for half an hour before Te started his media briefing on Tuesday, as he wanted the cables used for live TV broadcast removed from the conference room.

Te did not immediately go to the conference room, and instead sent his staff to make sure the broadcast journalists complied with his order.

“The court has never allowed live coverage of its proceedings and I read that to include the press conference,” he told reporters.

Live coverage of press conferences was a common practice in the SC during the time of its previous spokespersons – former assistant court administrator Ismael Khan Jr. and court administrator Jose Midas Marquez.

Te said it has been his policy ever since his appointment as chief of the SC public information office in January 2013 not to allow live broadcast of media briefings.

Broadcast media outfits have been airing the briefings live many times in the past, without Te calling their attention.

“I have never allowed it. So if you were filming it live then you were filming without permission. I don’t know where you got the idea that I would allow it live,” he said.

In a text message to reporters hours later, Te explained that his policy “is not a rule of the Supreme Court.”

“It’s part of how this PIO understands its role in presenting the court’s message requirement,” he said.

He admitted the live coverage ban is “not absolute,” citing the briefings on the court sessions in Baguio last April, the bar exam results and the decision on the constitutionality of the pork barrel that were aired live.

“My understanding from the start when I took over was live coverage was an exception, and the record is clear when requests have been made, they have never been denied,” Te said.

“It is not and should not be treated in the same way as the political departments because there really is no breaking news all the time as far as SC is concerned,” he added.

Te asked the media to “revisit how the SC is covered as a beat.”

But the Manual Guide for the Judiciary in Dealing with Media issued by the Philippine Judicial Academy defined court proceedings as “activities undertaken by the court in connection with the litigation of a suit which include arraignments, pre-trials, trials, hearings, ocular inspections, oral arguments and other related incidents.”

“These proceedings are open to the public except in those instances when the law or the rules allow the court to exclude the public,” the manual read.

Ironically, Te has initiated reforms to make the SC and its proceedings more accessible to the public. He led a makeover of the SC website, which now features “live streaming” and podcast or audio recordings of oral arguments.

Reynaldo Panaligan, founding member of the Justice and Court Reporters’ Association and a reporter of the Manila Bulletin who has been covering the high court for almost 40 years, lamented the development.

“I could not recall an incident – even years before the creation of its public information office – when the SC declined live television or radio coverage of an announcement of a resolution or decision, particularly those that affect public interest,” he said.

“Yes, media may be banned during closed-door deliberation of cases. But once a decision is reached and promulgated, there is no reason to ban live television or radio coverage during the announcement of the decision. The SC should show an example of transparency and of press freedom that it upholds in its decisions,” he added.

The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility said it would look into the policy of the SC’s PIO.

Show comments