RE: REQUEST RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL

IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES

AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH E.
ESTRADA
PART I. DECISION (JUNE 2001)
FACTS
The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) sent
a letter requesting the SC to allow the live media coverage
of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal
cases filed against former Pres. Estrada before the
Sandiganbayan to assure the public of full transparency
in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our
history.
The petition averred that public interest should be evident
bearing in mind the right of the public to vital information
affecting the nation. In effect, the petition seeks the reexamination of the October 23, 1991 resolution of the SC
in a case for libel filed by then President Aquino. The said
resolution resolved to prohibit live radio and television
coverage of court proceedings, in view order to protect
the parties right to due process, to prevent the distraction
of the participants in the proceedings and to avoid
miscarriage of justice. Video footages of court hearings for
news purposes shall be limited and restricted.
ISSUE
Whether live radio and TV coverage of the court
proceedings should be allowed.
RULING
Petition is denied.
The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition
involve the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees
of freedom of the press and the right to public
information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights
of the accused, on the other hand, along with the
constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings
in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. When these rights
race against one another, the right of the accused must be
preferred to win.
With the possibility of losing not only liberty but also the
very life of the accused, it behooves all to make absolutely
certain than an accused receives a verdict solely on the
basis of a just and dispassionate judgment, a verdict that
would come only after the presentation of credible
evidence testified to by6 unbiased witnesses unswayed by
any kind of pressure, whether open or subtle, in
proceedings that are devoid of histrionics that might
detract from its basic aim to ferret veritable facts free
from improper influence, and decreed by a judge with an
unprecedented mind, unbridled by running emotions or
passions.
Even while it may be difficult to quantify the influence, or
pressure that media can bring to bear on them directly
and through the shaping of public opinion, it is a fact,
nonetheless, that, indeed, it does so in so many ways and
in varying degrees. The conscious or unconscious effect
that such coverage may have on the testimony of
witnesses and the decision of judges cannot be evaluated
but, it can likewise be said, it is not at all unlikely for a
vote of guilt or innocence to yield to it. To say that actual
prejudice should first be present would leave to near

nirvana the subtle threats to justice that a disturbance of

the mind so indispensable to the calm and deliberate
dispensation of justice can create.
An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that
belongs to him, more than anyone else, where his life or
liberty can be held critically in balance. A public trial is not
synonymous with publicized trial; it only implies that the
court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit
in the available seats, conduct themselves with decorum
and observe the trial process.
The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied
freedom of the press and the right to public information.
Nevertheless, within the courthouse, the overriding
consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to
due process which must never be allowed to suffer
diminution in its constitutional proportions.
PART II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (SEPT 2001)
FACTS
The Secretary of Justice filed a MR arfuing 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 the right of the accused to a fair trial, on the
other hand; that if there is a clash, it must be resolved in
favor of the right of the people and the press because the
people are entitled to information.
RULING: In lieu of live TC and radio coverage of the
trial, the Court resolved to order the audio-visual
recording of the trial for documentary purposes,
considering the significance of the trial before the
Sandiganbayan of former President Estrada and the
importance of preserving the records thereof.
There are several reasons for such televised
recording. First, the hearings are of historic
significance. They are an affirmation of our commitment
to the rule that "the King is under no man, but he is under
God and the law." Second, the Estrada cases involve
matters of vital concern to our people who have a
fundamental right to know how their government is
conducted. This right can be enhanced by audio-visual
presentation. Third, audio-visual presentation is essential
for the education and civic training of the people. Above
all, there is the need to keep audio-visual records of the
hearings for documentary purposes. The recordings will
be useful in preserving the essence of the proceedings in
a way that the cold print cannot quite do because it
cannot capture the sights and sounds of events. They will
be primarily for the use of appellate courts in the event a
review of the proceedings, rulings, or decisions of the
Sandiganbayan is sought or becomes necessary. The
accuracy of the transcripts of stenographic notes taken
during the trial can be checked by reference to the tapes.
On the other hand, by delaying the release of the tapes
for broadcast, concerns that those taking part in the
proceedings will be playing to the cameras and will thus
be distracted from the proper performance of their roles
whether as counsel, witnesses, court personnel, or judges
will be allayed. The possibility that parallel trials before
the bar of justice and the bar of public opinion may
jeopardize, or even prevent, the just determination of the
cases can be minimized. The possibility that judgment
will be rendered by the popular tribunal before the court
of justice can render its own will be avoided.

The right of privacy of the accused is not a bar to the

production of such documentary. In Ayer Productions Pty.
Ltd. v. Capulong, the Court held that "a limited intrusion
into a person's privacy has long been regarded as
permissible where that person is a public figure and the
information sought to be elicited from him or to be
published about him constitute matters of a public
character."
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, an audio-visual recording of the trial of
former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan is
hereby ordered to be made, for the account of the
Sandiganbayan, under the following conditions: (a) the
trial shall be recorded in its entirety, excepting such
portions thereof as the Sandiganbayan may determine
should not be held public under Rule 119, 21 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure; (b) cameras shall be installed
inconspicuously inside the courtroom and the movement
of TV crews shall be regulated consistent with the dignity
and solemnity of the proceedings; (c) the audio-visual

recordings shall be made for documentary purposes only

and shall be made without comment except such
annotations of scenes depicted therein as may be
necessary to explain them; (d) the live broadcast of the
recordings before the Sandiganbayan shall have rendered
its decision in all the cases against the former President
shall be prohibited under pain of contempt of court and
other sanctions in case of violations of the prohibition; (e)
to ensure that the conditions are observed, the audiovisual recording of the proceedings shall be made under
the supervision and control of the Sandiganbayan or its
Division concerned and shall be made pursuant to rules
promulgated by it; and (f) simultaneously with the release
of the audio-visual recordings for public broadcast, the
original thereof shall be deposited in the National Museum
and the Records Management and Archives Office for
preservation and exhibition in accordance with law.