Supreme Court rejects live media coverage of Estrada trial

Filipinos got to watch the aborted impeachment trial live on television. This time the public won’t get the front row seat in the criminal trial of jailed former President Joseph Estrada.

Voting 8-6, the Supreme Court (SC) denied yesterday the request of the Kapisanan ng Mga Brodkasters ng Pilipinas (KBP) to cover Estrada’s trial at the Sandiganbayan live on radio and television.

"A trial is not a free trade of ideas. Nor is a competing market of thoughts the known test of truth in a courtroom. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial," declared Justice Jose Vitug, who wrote the 16-page ruling.

The SC ruled that the right of the accused to due process is more important than having his trial televised nationwide.

While the Sandiganbayan en banc had voted 8-6 in favor of live media coverage, the third division, which will hear the main charge of plunder against Estrada, was against it.

Vitug noted that live television and radio coverage of trials is also not allowed in the US Supreme Court and federal courts.

Five of the eight SC justices who concurred with Vitug were Estrada appointees: Sabino de Leon, Angelina Gutierrez, Bernardo Pardo, Minerva Reyes and Arturo Buena. Another Estrada appointee, Justice Consuelo Santiago, is on leave. Justices Santiago Kapunan and Vicente Mendoza also concurred with Vitug’s ponencia.

Those who dissented were Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., Justices Reynato Puno, Artemio Panganiban, Leonardo Quisumbing, Jose Melo and Josue Bellosillo.

Most of the magistrates invoked the high tribunal’s October 1991 ruling which banned media coverage of the trial of STAR publisher Max Soliven and the late columnist Luis Beltran whom former President Corazon Aquino charged with libel.

But Puno, the most senior justice after Davide, said the 1991 ruling should no longer be invoked because it was already 10 years old.

"A people kept in the dark by the blindfold of ignorance will only govern mistakes. Let it be stressed that the right of the people to know is strongest in times of turbulence for it is when the stakes to the state are high that they cannot afford to err due to ignorance," Puno said in his 18-page dissenting opinion.

"By outlawing television, the majority has denied our people the opportunity to know completely and accurately whether or not his trial will be fair and impartial," Puno wrote.

"All these because the majority has persisted in the primitive belief that the courtroom is limited to the pad and pencil reporters, the majority will bring about new Rip van Winkles in this age of electronic media," Puno said.

In a separate dissenting opinion, Panganiban suggested there could be safeguards against the fears of the concurring magistrates, like allowing only one video camera in the courtroom.

"By its decision today, the SC has turned its back and refused to march in cadence with the music created by the chimes of changing technology," Panganiban said.

"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 first-hand view of how the justice system operates," Panganiban added.

But the majority said they were not unmindful of technological and scientific advances but stressed such advances must not be applied to the detriment of the life and liberty of any person.

"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 and liberty can be held critically in balance," Vitug said in his ruling.

Courts are not like government agencies where the people’s will are expressed and made to bear on the justiciable issues brought before them, Vitug held.

Court junks Estrada plea to attend inaugurals

While legal analysts interpreted the SC ruling as favoring Estrada, he and his son and co-accused Jinggoy absorbed another loss at the Sandiganbayan yesterday.

The anti-graft court’s third division junked the Estradas’ appeal to be granted leave to attend the oath-taking of Estrada’s son Joseph Victor Ejercito as San Juan mayor and that of former First Lady Luisa Ejercito as senator.

Third division chairman Anacleto Badoy said allowing the Estradas to leave detention to attend the JV’s and Luisa’s inaugurals would constitute "special treatment" aside from being violative of the Rules of Court and the Constitution.

"If the undersigned goes by his heart, he would vote to grant the motion of Jinggoy to be allowed to go to San Juan and administer the oath of office, not only of his (half) brother, but also of his mother," Badoy said in a four-page ruling.

He said the third division asked the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) and the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) if there was a precedent to grant the Estradas’ request.

But the two agencies said they have never received any order from any court to allow a detainee to leave his detention center to attend the oath-taking of anybody.

"Not even an immediate member of the family. It is thus clear that to grant the authority and permission prayed for would constitute pure and simple treatment which violates the Rules of Court as well as the equal protection clause of the Constitution," Badoy ruled.

Badoy said that if he were in Jinggoy’s shoes, his heart would cry out to be present at the oath-taking of his mother and his half-brother.

"However, by his solemn oath, a judge is not given the luxury of any other alternative but, setting aside his emotions, he is duty-bound to apply the law, harsh though it may be at times," Badoy said.