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