Update:
Malacañang statement:
In keeping with the President’s longstanding position that the cause of justice and sustained reforms in ARMM require live coverage of the Maguindanao Massacre Trial, Secretary Herminio Coloma of the PCOO has instructed NBN4 to undertake a gavel-to-gavel coverage of the trial.
Related links:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/10-11-5-SC.htm
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/223349/nation/sc-allows-live-coverage-of-maguindanao-massacre-trial
http://harryroque.com/
Sa dami ng kundisyunes na binigay ng Supreme Court para makapag-cover ng live ang TV, Malabo na rin mangyayari.
Ayun sa desisyun na sinulat ni Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales na sinang-ayunan naman ng lahat na justices, isang TV camera lang ang papayagan sa loob ng korte kung saan doon kukuha na ng “feed” ang ibang TV networks.
Walang problema sa kundisyun na ito. Nagawa na ito sa ibang kaso katulad ng kay dating Pangulong Joseph Estrada.
Sinabi rin ng SC na kapag nagsimula ang coverage ng isang TV station sa araw nay un, dapat tuloy-tuloy hanggang matapos. Walang kumersyal, walang station break, walang voice over o kumento mula sa reporter.
Ito ang imposible. Kadalasan tatlong oras ang hearing sa umaga. Ibig sabihin noon, tatlong oras nakatutuk ang camera sa hearing, kahit ang pinag-uusapan ay mga administrative matters at hindi man lamang maka bigay ng summary o background ang reporter?
Ang mangyayari dito, lilipat ng estasyun ang mga mai-inip na manonood.
Ang maglalabag daw sa mga kundisyunes ay kakasuhan ng contempt of court at iba-ban na sa coverage ng kaso.
Walang kumersyal? Laking lugi yan sa TV networks. Hindi na sila magkuku-cover nyan.
Ang hindi katanggap-tanggap ay nagiging editor na ang Supreme Court sa desisyung ito. At halatang wala silang alam sa media.
Nagdesisyun na sila kung alin ang dapat ipalabas. Ang karapatan na yan ay sa media.
Sabi nga ni Harry Roque, ang abogado ng marami sa mga pamilya ng namatay na mga journalists, “Tama ang desisyun ng Supreme Court na ang live coverage ay hindi lumalabag sa karapatan ng akusado ngunit dapat ikunsidera ang mga kundisyunes na lumalabag sa malayang pamamahayag.”
Kaya naman ng petisyun ang mga news organization na magkakaroon ng live coverage ay para patuloy na masundan ng taumbayan itong karumal-dumal na krimen. Noong Nobyembre 23, 2009, pinagpapatay ng mga miyembro ng pamilyang Ampatuan sa pamumuno ni Andal, Jr, dating mayor ng bayan ng Datu Unsay sa Maguindanao ang 58 na taong kasama sa convoy ng kanilang kalaban sa pulitika na si Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu, na ngayon ay gubernador ng Maguindanao.
Sa 58 na biktima, 32 ay mga reporter na magku-cover ng pagpa-file ni Mangudadatu, sa pamagitan ng kanyang asawa, ng kanyang kandidatura.
Kung hindi ibahin ng Korte Suprema ang guidelines sa coverage, wala ring TV ang magku-cover. Parang wala na ring halaga ang desisyun.
Tama ka, malulugi nga ang TV networks dahil walang komersyal. Ewan ko lang kung may tv station ang mag aksaya ng panahon para diyan sa live coverage. Akala ko sa matuwid na daan na tayo dadaan. Hindi rin pala. Sa bulok na daan pa rin pala ang patungo.
Hanggang ngayon madami pa rin talagang palpak na desisyon na nagagawa. Mas gugustuhin ng may ari ng tv station na kumita ng pera dahil sa commercial kaysa pag aksayahan ang kaso na iyan na matagal na. Pera pera ang usapan sa ngayon.
Magbibigay rin lang ng kondisyon ay iyong kundisyon pa na ang bibigyan ng kondisyones ay magdadalawang isip pa. Kalokohan.
Sa desisyon na iyan ay parang ang gusto ay walang live coverage.
Gusto lang sigurong umiwas ng “trial by publicity”. Not all journalists are as responsible as you Ellen. Let us face it, marami sa mga tiga media ay nababayaran din. Maraming perang nakaw ang mga Ampatuans. They can pay a media outfit to “deodorize” the news against them.
I thought, we had already a “total Independence “…as a Republic. Masyado pa yata matindi-malakas ang ating pagka-“dependent” sa kapangyarihan ng “elite-moneyed-powered ” na nasa 3-branches ng gobyerno. Kulang o wala yata tayong kalayaan na tunay, na ipinaglaban ng mga Bayani, lalo na si Dr.JPRizal, Bonifacio at iba pa..sayang lang ang 113-taon na naka-ankla sa kapangyarihan ng Ma-salapi, at dynastic powers..Sila ang tunay na nakaka-gamit, ng tunay na kalayaan, at nababayaran ang ibang mamahayag, para sabihin ang katutuhanan, ki Juan ded la Cruz..Pilipinas, mahirap nang matuwid ang landas, pag-panay pera-pera ang pag-uusapan..dapat yata ay, 113th anniversary of being a “Dependent Republic “, sayang !..
Hmmmmm, this is perplexing. Should we allow the media outfits to turn this into a media circus, the ratings will definitely go sky high, or are we going to focus on the real issue?
On the one hand, the media companies won’t touch the issue if they don’t make anything out of it, on the other, the court has its prerogatives.
I am for allowing just one camera in the court room, and just give a copy to the media outfits after the daily proceedings, allowing people to come in and out, trying to outscoop the other or outeditorialize each other on the boob tube in real time is shameful.
Now what would our neighbors do in a case like this, Malaysia? Singapore? Vietnam?
I wish we can get this done quick enough, with the Ampatuans fingering Gloria (not literally), she gets incarerated in the same prison as they are, a freak riot breaks out which results in the death of the former fake president and her buddies. Now that would save us all the trouble.
Ellen,
Meron solusyon diyan, The government channel can carry the trial live and with no commercial or station breaks because it is funded by taxes. As a matter of fact, the government channel, which is under the office of the president who advocated live coverage of the trial, must provide live coverage.
#9. MB, that is also my opinion.
may solusyon dyan.. pwde pa din maglive coverage kahit may ganyang conditions ang SC.. imposible naman hindi magutom ang judge, maihi at kumati ang singit… bigyan din ng madaming tubig at lakasan ang aircon para lamamig.. ewan ko lang kung hindi yan mag tawag ng break madalas para mag CR…
mabuti ng mahirap basta meron.. kesa wala.. laban ng media to… kaya kailngan magtiis ang media at sakripisyo..
Manuel’s suggestion I think is the best. State broadcasting network will then be doing the exact thing it is required to do, i.e., public service. Very judicious!
I see no value in live coverage. This only serves the voyeuristic interests of the reality TV generation.
What is it for? For vigilance? To guard against backroom deals? But backroom deals are done in the backroom, not in open court.
Transparency? That is served by the transcript, and if they want to, audio tapes recorded by the media. Video will not add to what is on the record.
Besides, ang papangit niyang mga yan. You want to crucify the country with a boring trial featuring ugly people?
Yang mga scintillating cross-examinations; witnesses breaking down after being worn-down by the brilliant lawyer; bombastic arguments and counter-arguments, sa movies lang yan. In real life, trials are boring.
But, the Court has ruled, so let the show begin. I am only posting this to warn you against a big letdown, when your expectations do not materialize.
MB, Malacañang followed your suggestions. Here’s a press statement from Malacañang today:
Statement of Atty. Romy Capulong:
If you had asked me seven months ago: what were our chances of having the Supreme Court reconsider its ban on cameras inside the courtroom, I would have answered, “Not very good.” Up till this point, the Court had been very consistent in its opinion that the mere presence of cameras inside the courtroom is inherently prejudicial to the constitutional rights of the accused. There was no reason to hope that the Court would change its mind, and it is extremely difficult to persuade 15 people, of different backgrounds and experiences, that a free press is not necessarily incompatible with the right of an accused to a fair trial, especially when they had in two earlier instances, held to the contrary.
In filing the petition, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and its co-petitioners were shooting for the moon, or as we would say in Tagalog, suntok sa buwan, so the Court’s ruling is all the more …. At this point, I have to catch myself. I was about to say that considering the challenge that faced us, the Court’s ruling is all the more sweet when what I really mean to say is that the ruling is bittersweet. We have to remember that what brought us here is the sacrifice of 58 men and women a year and seven months ago, of our colleagues and friends, people who lived, laughed and loved and were loved in return. They are never far from our minds.
Tuesday’s ruling represents a victory in our campaign for transparency in government. But this victory must be viewed in a much broader context than simply a win for us and a loss for them. Above all else, the decision to allow television cameras inside the courtroom is a triumph for the Bill of Rights and not of one party prevailing over another. Everyone thinks that a nation’s history is charted by Congress, which lays down policy through the laws it creates, and by the President, who executes those laws. That is a dangerous misconception. The judiciary, in particular the Supreme Court, is a powerful and co-equal agent in that regard. Because judicial power is reposed in them, the courts can say “Go right” when Congress says “Go left,” and when the Executive Department forges ahead, the courts can countermand by saying “Stop!” So decisions of the Supreme Court possess more than just legal significance: they have a dynamic social impact as well.
The greatest bearing of the Supreme Court’s ruling will be on the access to justice by the millions upon millions of our poor and marginalized countrymen. If you examine the decision closely, you will find that it involves the exercise of the Court’s power to regulate practice and pleadings before all courts. This is not empty procedure because such is the means by which substantive rights are enforced. When the 12 Justices allowed television cameras inside the sala of Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes, they effectively allowed the public unimpeded access to the courtroom, which before was not possible for various reasons, whether due to geography, accessibility or other physical limitations. No longer. Simply by switching on the television or tuning in on the radio, Filipinos can witness and, not only that, participate in one of the most cherished traditions of a democracy, the administration of justice through an open and public trial.
Not the least of the people most benefited by the Supreme Court’s ruling are the families of our slain colleagues. I think of them often. Now they do not have to travel far and suffer greatly for the simple quest of justice for their fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters, cousins or aunts and uncles. While the resolution was silent on this point, the fact that the Court acknowledged the hardships imposed on the victims’ families as one of the considerations for opening the Ampatuan trial to live televised coverage, shows that, finally, victims and their families are no longer the invisible participants in a criminal trial. They, too, now have access to justice.
I believe that only good can come out of allowing television cameras inside the courtroom, not only in the Ampatuan trial on a pro hac vice basis. The benefits may not be obvious now, and along the way, difficulties will be encountered that others will use as an argument to return to the old ways, of closing the one forum where the people have an absolute right to be there. Our perspective should not be limited to the here and now, to tomorrow or the day after that, or to next week, the next month or even next year. We should not harp too much on the practical and the practicable lest we forget that we are thinking in the long-term and in it for the long haul.
When right is on our side, we should not settle for anything less.
June 16, 2011
From FB wall of Inday Espina-Varona
More specific guidelines reported by Inday Varona here:
http://rpscarredcat.blogspot.com/2011/06/lawyer-romy-capulong-said-it-best-legal.html?spref=fb