PEREZ V. ESTRADA AM No. 01-4-03-SC June 29, 2001
FACTS:
On March 13, 2001, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), an association representing duly franchised and authorized television and radio networks throughout the country, sent a letter requesting the Supreme Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history." The request was seconded by Mr. Cesar N. Sarino in his letter of 5 April 2001 to the Chief Justice and, still later, by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo. On 17 April 2001, the Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez formally filed the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not media coverage be allowed to air Estrada’s trial to the public.
HELD:
NO. In Estes v. Texas, US The Supreme Court held that television coverage of judicial proceedings involves an inherent denial of due process rights of the criminal defendant: "Witnesses might be frightened, play to the cameras, become nervous. They are then subject to extraordinary out-of-court influences that might affect their testimony. Telecasting increases the trial judge's responsibility to avoid actual prejudice to the defendant. For the defendant, telecasting is a form of mental harassment and subjects him to excessive public exposure and distracts him from an effective presentation of his defense. Finally, the television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionally or inadvertently can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public."
The right of people to information does not prescribe that TV cameras be installed in the courtroom. This right might be fulfilled by less distracting, degrading and more judicial means. In a criminal case, a life is at stake, and the due process rights of the accused shall take precedence over the people's right to information. The accused has the right to a public trial, and the exercise of such a right is his to make, because it is his life and liberty that is in the balance. A public trial is not the same as a publicized trial.
IBP: "TV coverage can negate the rule on the exclusion of the witness intended to ensure a fair trial...could allow the 'hooting throng' to arrogate upon themselves the task of judging the guilt of the accused...will not subserve the ends of justice, but will only pander to the desire of publicity of a few grandstanding lawyers."
Court is not unmindful of the recent technological advances but to chance forthwith the life and liberty of any person in a hasty bid to use and apply them, even before ample safety nets are provided and the concerns heretofore expressed are aptly addressed, is a price too high to pay.
PEREZ V. ESTRADA A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC September 13, 2001
FACTS:
This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision denying petitioners’ request for permission to televise and broadcast live the trial of former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. (ABOVE CASE)
The motion was filed by the Secretary of Justice, as one of the petitioners, who argues that there is really no conflict between the right of the people to public information and the freedom of the press, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of the accused to a fair trial; that if there is a clash between these rights, it must be resolved in favor of the right of the people and the press because the people, as the repository of sovereignty, are entitled to information; and that live media coverage is a safeguard against attempts by any party to use the courts as instruments for the pursuit of selfish interests.
On the other hand, former President Joseph E. Estrada reiterates his objection to the live TV and radio coverage of his trial on the ground that its allowance will violate the sub judice rule and that, based on his experience with the impeachment trial, live media coverage will only pave the way for so-called "expert commentary" which can trigger massive demonstrations aimed at pressuring the Sandiganbayan to render a decision one way or the other. Mr. Estrada contends that the right of the people to information may be served through other means less distracting, degrading, and prejudicial than live TV and radio coverage.
ISSUE:
Whether or not television and radio coverage of plunder case be allowed.
HELD:
NO. The Court has considered the arguments of the parties on this important issue and, after due deliberation, finds no reason to alter or in any way modify its decision prohibiting live or real time broadcast by radio or television of the trial of the former president. By a vote of nine (9) to six (6) of its member, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration of the Secretary of Justice.
In lieu of live TV and radio coverage of the trial, the Court, by the vote of eight (8) Justices, has resolved to order the audio-visual recording of the trial for documentary purposes. Seven (7) Justices vote against the audio-visual recording of the trial. Considering the significance of the trial before the Sandiganbayan of former President Estrada and the importance of preserving the records thereof, the Court believes that there should be an audio-visual recording of the proceedings. The recordings will not be for live or real time broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only later will they be available for public showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated its decision in every case to which the recording pertains. The master film shall be deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for historical preservation and exhibition pursuant to law.