Delaying tactic

Since October 23, 1991, having TV cameras and radio microphones inside the courtroom for the live coverage of the trials of criminal cases had already been prohibited by the Supreme Court. The SC issued the ban in a resolution regarding the move of media to report on the TV screens and radio airwaves the blow-by-blow proceedings of the libel case filed by then President Corazon C. Aquino as they actually unfold in the hallowed halls of justice. Almost ten years later, or on June 29, 2001, the SC still found it unpropitious to change that resolution of October 23, 1991 this time in connection with the petition filed by former Justice Secretary Hernando B. Perez praying for the live Radio-TV coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder cases against former President Joseph E. Estrada. Perez and other co-petitioners said that the trial involves "a matter of public concern and interest, or a matter over which the entire citizenry has the right to know" so it should be aired live.

In both the 29 June 2001 and 23 October 1991 resolutions, the SC weighed out the conflicting constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand and found the scale tilting in favor of the latter. In essence, the SC ruled that the live media coverage of judicial proceedings is an inherent denial of the due process rights of an accused since the "massive intrusion of representatives of the news media into the trial itself can so alter or destroy the constitutionally necessary judicial atmosphere and decorum that the requirements of impartiality imposed by the due process of law are denied the defendant". The SC said that "public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial". The law does not allow a publicized trial but only a public trial which "implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in the available seats and conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process".

The SC likewise identified the most likely prejudices created by the live media coverage on: (1) The witnesses who might be frightened and demoralized, become nervous or cocky and given to overstatement as they play to the camera; their memories may falter, as with anyone speaking publicly, and accuracy of their statements may be severely undermined as they are subject to out-of-court influences affecting their testimonies. (2) Trial judges who may be burdened with additional responsibilities that may affect their performance as their attention is divided between ensuring a fair trial to the accused and avoiding a perception of actual prejudice to him; they are also human beings and are subject to the same psychological reactions as laymen. (3) The defendant who might be subject to a form of mental – if not physical – harassment resembling a police lineup or the third degree; live coverage can destroy him and his case in the eyes of the public. "The inevitable close-up of his gestures and expressions during his trial might well transgress his personal sensibilities, his dignity and his ability to concentrate on the proceedings before him enough to distract him from the effective presentation of his case."

Mr. Estrada himself opposed the petition for live media coverage of his trial arguing that "such coverage would be prejudicial to his right to a fair trial because radio and television can easily be manipulated for propaganda purposes; will play to the gallery; may lead to the possibility that the trial court may be ultimately influenced by what sits well with the public; its rulings and decisions may take into account what will please the crowd; and would allow live play-by-play annotation of the hearings by media people with varying degrees of expertise and biases in seeming mockery of the sub judice rule." And the SC sustained his position.

The strong and valid reasons for the prohibition against media coverage of the Estrada plunder trial still remain as valid and strong, if not more imperative, now as when the SC first ruled on it some 13 years ago and again last 2001 in Estrada’s own trial of plunder cases. This is a ban grounded on well entrenched and immutable principle of due process enshrined in our Constitution and not on changing moods and fickle minds of an accused like Mr. Estrada who has made a complete somersault. Asking the Sandiganbayan to allow live media coverage of his trial only now after the prosecution has rested its case evidently shows that he only wants to gag the live coverage of the prosecution’s presentation of its case because he does not want the entire nation to know the damning evidence against him. Besides he is in effect asking the Sandiganbayan to overturn the SC ruling on the matter which his lawyers know runs counter to the hierarchical set up in the Judiciary. He cannot even liken the live coverage of his plunder trial to the live coverage of the impeachment proceedings against him because the latter is more of a political course of action in which only his political fortune is at stake and where, therefore, the right of the people to know is more paramount. The plunder trial, on the other hand, is a purely judicial proceedings involving the life or liberty of an accused where his right to due process of law takes precedence. All told, Estrada’s latest move is just another one of his many delaying tactics. The Sandiganbayan should see through this ploy.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]