Emmanuel SD.

Ortega
UA&P Law 3

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE PUNO - DIGEST

Several parties wrote Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and the Supreme Court of the

Philippines to allow the live television coverage of the trial of former President Joseph

Estrada. Among them were the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, Mr. Cesar N.

Sarino, Senator Renato Cayetano, Secretary of Justice Hernando B. Perez, and the Makati

Business Club. This was opposed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Presiding Justice Garchitorena submitted his Comment wherein he stated that 6 of the

Justices of the Sandiganbayan were against the radio-TV coverage while 8 were in favor.

Former President Estrada, opposed the petition for live radio-TV coverage of his trials in the

Sandiganbayan. He cited the need to preserve the rule of law and warned that radio and

television as media can be easily manipulated for propaganda purposes.

The Courts en banc resolution of October 22, 1991 absolutely prohibits live TV and

radio coverage of court hearings. Its rationale is explained, thus: While we take notice of the

September 1990 report of the United States Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on

Cameras in the Courtroom, still the current rule obtaining in the Federal Courts of the United

States prohibits the presence of television cameras in criminal trials. A trial of any kind or in

any court is a matter of serious importance to all concerned and should not be treated as a

means of entertainment.

In Estes vs. Texas, the United States Supreme Court held that television coverage of judicial

proceedings involves an inherent denial of the due process rights of a criminal

defendant. They identified four (4) areas of potential prejudice which might arise from the

impact of the cameras on the jury, witnesses, the trial judge and the defendant. They ruled

that witnesses might be frightened, play to the camera, or become nervous. They are subject

to extraordinary out-of-court influences which might affect their testimony. Also, telecasting

may affect the trial judges performance. For the defendant, telecasting is a form of mental

harassment and subjects him to excessive public exposure and distracts him from the

effective presentation of his defense.

Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendants right to due process as well as to the fair

and orderly administration of justice, and considering further that the freedom of the press

and the right of the people to information may be served and satisfied by less distracting and

prejudicial means, live radio and television coverage of court proceedings shall not be

allowed.

Justice Puno respectfully submits that After the lapse of ten (10) years, the 1991 resolution of

this Court absolutely banning live radio and television coverage of criminal proceedings

should be re-examined to re-adjust the balance between a free press and a fair trial in light of

the continuing progress in communications technology and to expand the right of access of

the press and the public to information without, however, impairing the right of an accused to

due process. To bolster his recommendation, he states the following:

1. Estes case has been modified by subsequent cases

In the 1981 case of Chandler v. Florida, The US Supreme Court concluded that an

absolute constitutional ban on broadcast coverage of trials cannot be justified simply because

there is a danger that, in some cases, prejudicial broadcast accounts of pre-trial and trial
events may impair the ability of jurors to decide the issue of guilt or innocence uninfluenced

by extraneous matter.

After Estes, the US Supreme Court in a series of landmark cases also struck the proper

balance between freedom of the press and restrictions on medias access to courtrooms vis-a-

vis the right of an accused to fair trial.

In the 1976 case of Nebraska Press Association v. Stewart,the US Supreme Court held

that pre-trial publicity even pervasive, adverse publicity does not inevitably lead to an unfair

trial.

In the 1980 case of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, the US Supreme Court held

that criminal trials were historically open and for the justice system to work, the system must

satisfy the appearance of justice, which is best provided by allowing people to observe the

judicial process.

2. Objection as to ill effect on dignity and decorum has long receded

The Court resolution of 1991 absolutely banning televised trial was also premised on the

disruptive effect of cameras on the dignity and decorum in the courtroom. It should be noted

that with the quantum leap in communications technology in the last twenty (20) years, TV

cameras are now less destructive and intrusive.

3. An overwhelming majority of the states now allow radio-TV coverage of criminal trials..

47 states now allow television coverage. Only three (3) states ban cameras in the

courtroom, namely, New York, South Dakota and Mississippi.

Television is today arguably the most powerful medium of communication. The principal

arguments favoring televised trial are well laid out and can hardly be refuted.
Firstly, an open trial has a great value. The value of openness lies in the fact that people not

actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed.

To work effectively, it is important that criminal process satisfy the appearance of justice and

the appearance of justice can best be provided by allowing people to observe it. Without

doubt, television can convey more completely and accurately the substance and subtleties of

judicial

proceedings to the public.

Second. The educative effect of public attendance is a material advantage. Respect for the

law is increased and a strong confidence on judicial remedies is secured.

Of the three branches of government, the judiciary is the least known to the public because its

nature does not allow total transparency but public, open trials of criminal cases under

regulated conditions furnish rare opportunities for the people to understand and appreciate the

business of the courts.

Third, empirical studies show that cameras in the courtroom do not have any negative effect

on judicial proceedings.

Fourth. Televised trial helps the press fulfill its role of exposing miscarriage of justice.

It should, however, be stressed that televising trial is still not without its danger to the

constitutional right of an accused to fair trial. The presence of television in the courtroom can

affect a witness. The accuracy of his testimony may be compromised. His physical demeanor,

so important to trial judges to determine his credibility, may become less natural under the

limelight. But these probable dangers are not insurmountable can be minimized if not avoided

by appropriate rules regulating televised trials.

4. Live radio-TV coverage of a criminal trial cannot be demanded as a matter of right but its

absolute denial is also constitutionally suspect. It is therefore respectfully submitted that

the matter of whether or not the proceedings in a criminal trial should be televised, totally

or partially, should be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and it shall be

his duty to provide and impose the necessary rules and regulations to assure

that the televised trial will not detract from the solemnity, decorum and dignity of the

court.

With due respect, the majority has struck the balance between free press and fair trial much

too much to the prejudice of the press and public right to information. It has unduly sustained

former President Estradas generalized grievance that cameras in the courtroom will bring

about the collapse of the rule of law and the hypothetical fear that they will psychologically

intimidate witnesses. For not even requiring former President Estrada to show actual

prejudice to his right to fair trial, the majority has modified our ruling case law on the

matter. It will throttle the right of the press to access to information and choke the flow of

knowledge to the people. It is the people who govern in a democracy and they can only

govern well if they are fully informed.

The majority refuses to see that the revolution on communications technology is still going

on. By outlawing television in the trial of former President Estrada, the majority has denied

our people the opportunity to know completely and accurately whether or not his trial will be

fair and impartial.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, I respectfully submit that the absolute ban on televising criminal trials

be lifted and the petitions to televise the trial of the plunder cases against former President

Joseph E. Estrada be remanded to the Sandiganbayan for proper disposition in accordance

with the suggested guidelines set forth above.