| COURT
EN BANC RESOLUTIONOCTOBER
22, 1991Re:
Live TV
and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. Aquino’s
Libel
Case.
Gentlemen:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Quoted hereunder,
for your information, is a Resolution of the Court En Banc
dated
October 22, 1991.
"
Re:
Live
TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. Aquino’s
Libel
Case.
February 11, 1991 was
no ordinary day for the 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:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"x
x x 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:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"for a
reaction
to this letter so that, if deemed necessary, I 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."[1]
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."[2] 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."[3]
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."[4]
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"[5]
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.[6]
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,[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 the
defendant[10]
and the inherent and constitutional power of the courts to control
their
proceedings in order to permit the fair and impartial administration of
justice.[11]
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[12]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.[13]
In Estes vs. Texas,[14]
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:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"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 f 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."Representatives
of the
press have no special standing to apply for a writ of mandate to 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 of the public.[15]
Massive intrusion of representatives of the news media into 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[16]
and a defendant in a criminal proceeding should not be forced to run a
gauntlet of reporters and photographers each time he enters or leaves
the
courtroom.[17]
Considering
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. Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall be
restricted and limited to shots of the 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.
ACCORDINGLY, in order
to protect the parties’ right to due process, to prevent the
distraction
of the participants in the proceedings and in the last analysis, to
avoid
miscarriage of justice, the Court resolved to prohibit live radio and
television
coverage of court proceedings. Video footages of court hearings for
news
purposes shall be limited and restricted as above indicated."
Melencio-Herrera,
J., is on leave.
Very
truly yours,DANIEL
T.
MARTINEZClerk
of Court
By:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[Sgd.]
LUZVIMINDA
D. PUNOAssistant
Clerk of Court
______________________
Endnotes:
[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] Pages. 6-7, Ibid.
[7] Section 4, Article III, 1987 Constitution
[8] Section 7, Art. III, Ibid.
[9] Section 14 (2). Article III, Ibid.
[10] Section 14 (1), Article III, Ibid.
[11] Section 5, par. 5, Article VIII, Ibid.
[12]
The United States Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras
recommended
that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[a]
the
existing ban on cameras in the courtroom be stricken from the Code of
Conduct
for United States Judges (Canon 3A [7] and henceforth policy on the
subject
be included in the Guides to Judiciary Policies and Procedures;
and
[b]
a
policy statement be adopted expanding the permissible use of cameras
and
other electronic means to include ceremonial proceedings, for
perpetuation
of the record, for security purposes, and for 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) 68 Cal Rptr 83, hear gr by Sup Ct. app.
[16]Hilliard vs. Arizona
(CA9 Ariz)
362 F2d 908.
[17]
Seymour vs. United States (cA5 Tex) 373 F2d 629.
|
