RP govt wants live coverage of Estrada's trial
RP govt wants live coverage of Estrada's trial
MANILA: The government has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision prohibiting live media coverage of the trial of deposed President Joseph Estrada. There is still hope that the decision may yet be reversed, considering the close vote of 8-6.
The trial of Estrada for plunder, perjury and other crimes is a landmark event in the country's history. It may well determine the direction of efforts to curb graft and corruption in government, a problem that has plagued the nation for decades.
Let us consider the objections of the majority in the Supreme Court to live media coverage of the Estrada trial:
First, the Court said that the rights of the accused must be protected, over and above freedom of the press and the right to public information. But will live media coverage of the trial work to the prejudice of the accused?
Estrada has a battery of skilled lawyers who can always raise objections when they see that he is being denied his rights. Live coverage of the trial will precisely show if there are attempts to violate the rights of the accused.
Second, the Court said that "television can work profound changes in the behavior of people it focuses on." Who are the people it is referring to?
Well, obviously, the Sandiganbayan justices, the public and private prosecutors, the defense counsel and the witnesses.
Live TV coverage will spur the justices, the prosecutors and the defense counsel to do their best and to be on their best behavior. The televised Senate impeachment trial showed that people won't tolerate a poor presentation (which was the initial impression they had of the prosecution's case) or legal hanky- panky and legerdemain (which the defense tried to pull off, to no avail, in the latter part of the trial).
The fear of grandstanding is not real because, to our knowledge, none of the justices, prosecutors and defense counsel are angling for public office. They just want to try the case as fairly as they can and then get on with their lives.
The Senate impeachment trial was another thing. Admittedly, some of the senator-judges were playing to the gallery because they were running for reelection. But even then, an even-handed presiding justice, Chief Justice Hilario Davide, kept the proceedings on an even keel.
In the coming trial, even if it's televised, the presiding justices can always see when a lawyer is going out of bounds, and admonish him or even declare him in contempt of court. The court has enough power to keep proceedings orderly and to slap down anyone who would convert the trial into a circus.
Third, the majority in the Supreme Court expressed fear that a televised trial may inspire another demonstration like Edsa II or "Edsa III."
But the circumstances of the Senate impeachment trial were extraordinary, and they called for an extraordinary remedy. The people went out in the tens of thousands to Edsa and Mendiola to protest what they perceived to be a travesty of justice committed by the Craven Eleven in the Senate. A televised court trial will ensure that a similar attempt to prevent the disclosure of the truth will never succeed.
As for TV coverage influencing the decision of the Sandiganbayan, we must give the justices who will try the former president more credit than that.
They are experienced jurists who know the law and the rules of procedure. And if they show any bias or prejudice, the defense lawyers can always petition that they inhibit themselves or they can move to declare a mistrial in an extreme case.
The majority said that US courts don't allow live media coverage of trials. But Justice Reynato Puno disputed this, saying that 47 American states allow TV coverage while only three -- New York, South Dakota and Mississippi -- don't.
The trend now is toward transparency, openness in court proceedings, and yet the majority would limit public access -- through the media -- to court proceedings.
It is true that even with the ban, reporters can write about the trial but the reports they will write will go through several "filters" and may be affected by their prejudices and biases as well as those of the copyreaders and editors. Some people may just want their information straight from the courtroom, without having to go through media filters.
Information is the oxygen of democracy. Without that oxygen, democracy and good government will not flourish. Limit the people's access to information and very soon they will be suffering from informational and political emphysema.
People in a democracy should be given the widest, fullest access to information. Give the people the option of pure oxygen -- full access to the Estrada trial through a live coverage by the media.
-- Philippine Daily Inquirer/Asia News Network