RP govt wants live coverage of Estrada's trial<\/p>\n
MANILA: The government has asked the Supreme Court to
\nreconsider its decision prohibiting live media coverage of the
\ntrial of deposed President Joseph Estrada. There is still hope
\nthat the decision may yet be reversed, considering the close vote
\nof 8-6.<\/p>\n
The trial of Estrada for plunder, perjury and other crimes is
\na landmark event in the country's history. It may well determine
\nthe direction of efforts to curb graft and corruption in
\ngovernment, a problem that has plagued the nation for decades.<\/p>\n
Let us consider the objections of the majority in the Supreme
\nCourt to live media coverage of the Estrada trial:<\/p>\n
First, the Court said that the rights of the accused must be
\nprotected, over and above freedom of the press and the right to
\npublic information. But will live media coverage of the trial
\nwork to the prejudice of the accused?<\/p>\n
Estrada has a battery of skilled lawyers who can always raise
\nobjections when they see that he is being denied his rights. Live
\ncoverage of the trial will precisely show if there are attempts
\nto violate the rights of the accused.<\/p>\n
Second, the Court said that \"television can work profound
\nchanges in the behavior of people it focuses on.\" Who are the
\npeople it is referring to?<\/p>\n
Well, obviously, the Sandiganbayan justices, the public and
\nprivate prosecutors, the defense counsel and the witnesses.<\/p>\n
Live TV coverage will spur the justices, the prosecutors and
\nthe defense counsel to do their best and to be on their best
\nbehavior. The televised Senate impeachment trial showed that
\npeople won't tolerate a poor presentation (which was the initial
\nimpression they had of the prosecution's case) or legal hanky-
\npanky and legerdemain (which the defense tried to pull off, to no
\navail, in the latter part of the trial).<\/p>\n
The fear of grandstanding is not real because, to our
\nknowledge, none of the justices, prosecutors and defense counsel
\nare angling for public office. They just want to try the case as
\nfairly as they can and then get on with their lives.<\/p>\n
The Senate impeachment trial was another thing. Admittedly,
\nsome of the senator-judges were playing to the gallery because
\nthey were running for reelection. But even then, an even-handed
\npresiding justice, Chief Justice Hilario Davide, kept the
\nproceedings on an even keel.<\/p>\n
In the coming trial, even if it's televised, the presiding
\njustices can always see when a lawyer is going out of bounds, and
\nadmonish him or even declare him in contempt of court. The court
\nhas enough power to keep proceedings orderly and to slap down
\nanyone who would convert the trial into a circus.<\/p>\n
Third, the majority in the Supreme Court expressed fear that a
\ntelevised trial may inspire another demonstration like Edsa II or
\n\"Edsa III.\"<\/p>\n
But the circumstances of the Senate impeachment trial were
\nextraordinary, and they called for an extraordinary remedy. The
\npeople went out in the tens of thousands to Edsa and Mendiola to
\nprotest what they perceived to be a travesty of justice committed
\nby the Craven Eleven in the Senate. A televised court trial will
\nensure that a similar attempt to prevent the disclosure of the
\ntruth will never succeed.<\/p>\n
As for TV coverage influencing the decision of the
\nSandiganbayan, we must give the justices who will try the former
\npresident more credit than that.<\/p>\n
They are experienced jurists who know the law and the rules of
\nprocedure. And if they show any bias or prejudice, the defense
\nlawyers can always petition that they inhibit themselves or they
\ncan move to declare a mistrial in an extreme case.<\/p>\n
The majority said that US courts don't allow live media
\ncoverage of trials. But Justice Reynato Puno disputed this,
\nsaying that 47 American states allow TV coverage while only three
\n-- New York, South Dakota and Mississippi -- don't.<\/p>\n
The trend now is toward transparency, openness in court
\nproceedings, and yet the majority would limit public access --
\nthrough the media -- to court proceedings.<\/p>\n
It is true that even with the ban, reporters can write about
\nthe trial but the reports they will write will go through several
\n\"filters\" and may be affected by their prejudices and biases as
\nwell as those of the copyreaders and editors. Some people may
\njust want their information straight from the courtroom, without
\nhaving to go through media filters.<\/p>\n
Information is the oxygen of democracy. Without that oxygen,
\ndemocracy and good government will not flourish. Limit the
\npeople's access to information and very soon they will be
\nsuffering from informational and political emphysema.<\/p>\n
People in a democracy should be given the widest, fullest
\naccess to information. Give the people the option of pure oxygen
\n-- full access to the Estrada trial through a live coverage by
\nthe media.<\/p>\n
-- Philippine Daily Inquirer\/Asia News Network<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/rp-govt-wants-live-coverage-of-estradas-trial-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }