SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SEPARATE OPINION

VITUG, J.:

Due process is timeless. It is a precious fundamental right that secures and protects, under a rule of law, the life and liberty of a person from the oppression of power. A cherished fixture in our bill of rights, its encompassing guarantee will not be diminished by advances in science and technology. I fail to perceive it to be otherwise.

Precisely, in its 29 ^th June 2001 decision, the Court did not consider it propitious to allow live television and radio coverage of the trial in order to help ensure a just and fair trial. The Court felt it judicious to insulate not only the Sandiganbayan but also the trial participants, the lawyers and witnesses, from being unduly influenced by possible adverse effects that such a coverage could bring. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above ruling and countered that, if one must be pitted against the other, the right to public information of grave national interest should be held more paramount than the right of the accused to a fair and public trial, the former being appurtenant to the sovereign and the latter being merely a privilege bestowed to an individual.

I am not ready to accept such a notion. I see it as being an implicit retreat, unwisely, from an age-old struggle of the individual against the tyranny of the sovereign. ¹ The right of the public to information, in any event, is not here really being sacrificed. The right to know can very well be achieved via other media coverage; the windows of information through which the public might observe and learn are not closed.

In addressing the present motion for reconsideration, colleagues on the Court opine that there should be an audio-visual recording of the proceedings for documentary purposes because, first, the hearings are of historic significance; second, the Estrada cases involve matters of vital concern to our people who have a fundamental right to know how their government works; third, the audio-visual presentation is essential for education and civic training of the people; and fourth, such recording can be used by appellate courts in the event that the review of the proceedings, ruling, or decisions of the Sandiganbayan is sought or becomes necessary. ²cräläwvirtualibräry

The proposition has novel features; regrettably, I still find it hard to believe that the presence of the cameras inside the courtroom will not have an untoward impact on the court proceedings. No empirical data has been shown to suggest otherwise. To the contrary, experience attests to the intimidating effect of cameras and electronic devices in courtrooms on the litigants, witnesses and jurors. ³ In addition, the natural reticence of witnesses at the stand can even easily be exacerbated by placing them on camera in contravention of normal experience. ⁴ The demeanor of the witnesses can also have an abstruse effect on the ability of the judge to accurately assess the credibility of such witnesses. ⁵ The presence of cameras, for whatever reason, may not adequately address the dangers mentioned in the Courts decision of 29 June 2001. There are just too many imponderables.

Most importantly, it does not seem right to single out and make a spectacle of the cases against Mr. Estrada. Dignity is a precious part of personality innate in every human being, and there can be no cogent excuse for impinging it even to the slightest degree. It is not the problem of privacy that can cause concern more than the erosion of reality that cameras tend to cast.

In the petition, albeit entitled an administrative matter, the only issue raised is whether the cases of a former President pending before the Sandiganbayan can be covered by live television and radio broadcast. The matter now being sought to be addressed by my esteemed colleagues is not even an issue. If it has to be considered at all, the rule must be of general application and promulgated after a thorough study and deliberation, certainly far more than what have been said and done in this case. Hearings, where expert opinion is sought and given, should prove to be helpful and of value.

WHEREFORE, I concur but only in the denial with finality of the motion for reconsideration.

¹ See Frankfurter, J. in Bridges v. California, 314 US 252

² Resolution, pp. 3-4

³ Picturing Justice: Images of Law and Lawyers in the Visual Media, Gerard uelmen, University of San Francisco law review, Summer 1996

⁴ The Continuing debate Over Cameras in the Courtroom, Federal Lawyers, July 1995

⁵ Supra, pp. 1-2