SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

DISSENTING OPINION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

With due respect, I dissent from the majoritys ruling, written by Justice Jose C. Vitug, absolutely banning live media coverage of judicial trials.

In justifying this proscription, the majority relies mainly on an en banc Resolution dated October 22, 1991, ¹ in which this Court resolved to totally prohibit live radio and television coverage of court hearings, mainly because of the prejudice it poses (1) to defendants right to due process, (2) and to the fair and orderly administration of justice; (3) while pointing out, on the other hand, that the right of the people to information may be served and satisfied by less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means.

That was in 1991. Today in 2001, I respectfully submit that it is technologically possible to uphold the right of the people to public information without violating the right of the accused to due process and without impeding the orderly administration of justice. It is now feasible to satisfy the peoples right to information by less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means.

At bottom, I would like to believe that media and the judiciary are natural partners, because they are bound together by the same reasons for being the search for truth, the protection of the peoples rights, and the defense of the basic norms of society. By proscribing live coverage of trials and hearings, the Court has lost an indispensible teammate in discovering, processing and reporting the raw, unadulterated and unvarnished truth. Why is the majority afraid of the truth? More pointedly, why is it fearful of the whole truth and nothing but the unedited truth? Does it not believe that the truth shall set us free?

Basic Premise: Free,Open and Public Hearing

The basic premise of this Dissent is that, as a general rule, everyone has a 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 hearings of cases. ² However, given the limitations of time and space in a courtroom, it is not always possible to physically accommodate all persons interested in witnessing a court hearing. That is why court salas have been enlarged. Moreover, microphones equipped with electronic amplifiers, and sometimes with closed circuit television, have in the past been used to project the proceedings to the immediate vicinity of the courtroom via radio speakers, TV monitors and projection screens. In this manner, people outside have been able to listen to and watch the proceedings, as if they were inside the courtroom.

As the 21^st century dawns, it is now possible to use even more advanced technology to enable more people to watch judicial proceedings in the privacy of their homes and offices without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused or to the integrity of orderly justice.

Mechanics of Opening Court Hearings to Media Coverage

Indeed, a single fixed camera under the control of the court, could catch, live, the incidents in the trial. The audio-video output of the camera could be flashed on big, wide TV monitors or projection screens inside and outside the courtroom. This will also enable TV and radio crews outside the courtroom to beam the output to their respective stations for broadcasting to the public, without the ubiquitous and intimidating wiring, lights or media cameras inside the courthouse.

The video camera will be placed in the rear of the courtroom and its position shall be locked to wide-angle, so that only a stationary audience view is attained. There will be no other cameras, lights or other media equipment, which can cause nervousness or anxiety to witnesses, lawyers and other personalities directly involved in a judicial trial.

No Prejudice to the Accused

Needless to state, this method will prevent editorializing or sensationalism, which the Court in 1991 feared. In this manner, there will be no unwelcome camera focusing, probing, angling, panning or other kinds of manipulation.

Radio and TV reporters, by patching their connectors to the distribution amplifiers, will be able to do live broadcasts of the proceedings without hustling the judges, lawyers, parties or witnesses. They will be able to broadcast only such matters as a spectator in the courtroom can see and hear.

After a long and serious reflection on this matter, I think that the setting up of a single fixed camera inside the courtroom, to which broadcast stations could connect, is the answer to the opposing positions of the parties and the intervenors in the present matter. To repeat, this single fixed camera will give its viewers the chance to be similarly situated as a spectator inside the court who can see, watch and hear the unfolding drama of the court proceedings. Surely, the recipients of the TV signals beamed by broadcast stations cannot interfere and prejudice the fair and orderly administration of justice, for the simple reason that they are outside the vicinity of the courtroom. Thus, they cannot by any means be the hooting throng that the IBP scorns and fears, thinking they would destroy the constitutionally recognized judicial atmosphere and decorum.

Proper Balancing of Conflicting Interests

A trial must be public and transparent, because openness is vital to the effective administration of criminal justice in a democracy. Not only does it safeguard the rights of the accused; it likewise ensures public trust in the conduct of the trial.

Therefore, after balancing the interests of the parties concerned -- the constitutional rights of the accused and the requirements of orderly procedures vis--vis the peoples fundamental freedom of expression and right to information on matters of public concern -- I respectfully submit that live coverage via a single fixed camera inside the courtroom, through which the media can access and therefore broadcast the proceedings to the entire nation and to the world, is the best technological and legal solution to the concerns raised by the Court in 1991 and to the objections now aired by the accused (former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada) and the IBP.

Epilogue

A new world order brought about by the information highway and the influx of new technology in communications is dawning. And yet the Court, by its Decision today, has turned its back and refused to march in cadence with the music created by the chimes of changing technology. Our people, long awakened from the dark ages in Philippine history, are now clamoring to be veritable witnesses to the truth, and this clamor can be answered technologically by giving them a firsthand view of how the justice system operates. To keep public trust and esteem, transparency and accountability were cornerstones of this Courts avowed policies as it celebrated its centenary on June 11, 2001. What better proof that it is sincere in realizing its goal of judicial renaissance than by opening up its proceedings without, however, compromising the rights of the accused and the integrity of orderly justice.

Indeed, in a free society where transparency and accountability are the desirable standards of public office, ³ this Court can no longer totally prohibit live media coverage of trials and hearings, given the reality that the technology of modern communications has adequately overcome the obsolete reasons for the ban.

These advances in communication facilities have now made it possible to satisfy the peoples constitutional right to information without violating the constitutional right of the accused to a fair trial and without subverting the orderly administration of justice. Indeed, it is now technologically feasible to give people in their homes and offices the same access to trials as spectators inside the courthouse.

Let the light of truth be beamed to all the people through the advances of science and technology in the 21^st century!

WHEREFORE , I vote to GRANT the request of the KBP and the Petition of the justice secretary, subject to the safeguards prescribed above.

¹ In Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. Aquinos Libel Case, the Court en banc held as follows:

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 reporters constitutional rights are no greater than those of any other member of the public. 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 due process of law are denied the defendant 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.

Considering the prejudice it poses to 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 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.

² Sec. 14, Art. III of the Constitution, provides:

x x x

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. x x x. (emphasis ours)

³ See also Panganiban, Tranparency, Unanimity and Diversity, 2000 ed., pp. 46-64.