EN BANC

[A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC. October 23, 2012.]

IN RE: PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE OF

THE MULTIPLE MURDER CASES AGAINST MAGUINDANAO
GOVERNOR ZALDY AMPATUAN, ET AL.

[A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC. October 23, 2012.]

RE: PETITION FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PRESENT

COURT HANDLING THE TRIAL OF THE MASSACRE OF 57
PERSONS, INCLUDING 32 JOURNALISTS, IN AMPATUAN,
MAGUINDANAO INTO A SPECIAL COURT HANDLING THIS
CASE ALONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING GENUINE
SPEEDY TRIAL; AND FOR THE SETTING UP OF VIDEOCAM
AND MONITOR OUTSIDE THE COURT FOR THE JOURNALISTS
TO COVER AND FOR THE PEOPLE TO WITNESS THE "TRIAL
OF THE DECADE" TO MAKE IT TRULY PUBLIC AND IMPARTIAL
AS COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

[A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC. October 23, 2012.]

RE: LETTER OF PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III FOR THE

"LIVE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE
TRIAL".

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated OCTOBER
23, 2012 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC (In re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage
of the Multiple Murder Cases against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy
Ampatuan, et al.); A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC (Re: Petition for the constitution
of the present court handling the trial of the massacre of 57 persons,
including 32 journalists, in Ampatuan, Maguindanao into a Special Court
handling this case alone for the purpose of achieving genuine speedy
trial; and for the setting up of videocam and monitor outside the court
for the journalists to cover and for the people to witness the "Trial of
the Decade" to make it truly public and impartial as commanded by the
Constitution); A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC (Re: Letter of President Benigno S.
Aquino III for the "Live Media Coverage of the Maguindanao Massacre
Trial"). On June 14, 2011, this Court, through Associate Justice Conchita
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Carpio-Morales, promulgated a Resolution 1 (the June 14, 2011 Resolution)
partially granting pro hac vice the request for live broadcast by television and
radio of the trial court proceedings of the "Maguindanao massacre" cases, 2
subject to specic guidelines fully set forth in said Resolution.
Subsequently, counsels for petitioners Editha Mirandilla Tiamzon (Tiamzon) and
Glenna Legarta (Legarta) led a Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated
June 29, 2011 alleging that "the provisos (1) prohibiting broadcasts on the trial
without any voice-overs, except brief annotations of scenes depicted in the
proceeding that may be necessary to explain them at the start or at the end of
the scene; (2) prohibiting the repeat airing of the audio-visual recording except
upon nality of judgment or of brief footage and still images derived from or
cartographic sketches of scenes based on the recording, and only for news
purposes; and (3) requiring continuous broadcast without any commercial break
or any other gap except when the day's proceedings are adjourned, or during the
period of recess called by the trial court and during portions of the proceedings
wherein the public is ordered excluded, all substitute the Court's editorial
judgment for media's own and therefore constitute prior restraint that infringes
the constitutional right to free expression." 3
HECaTD

Petitioners Tiamzon and Legarta take issue on provisos (f), (g), and (h) of the
enumerated guidelines in the June 14, 2011 Resolution and allege that these
must be struck down for being unconstitutional, as they constitute prior restraint
on free expression because they dictate what media can and cannot report about
the "Maguindanao massacre" trial. Petitioners Tiamzon and Legarta maintain that
the restriction and penalty sought to be imposed on media produce a "chilling
eect" on all forms of expression about the court proceedings. Petitioners
Tiamzon and Legarta also add that proviso (h) constitutes an undue taking of
property rights as it "forces media outts to commit practically [a] big chunk of
their resources to the coverage of the trial without any commercial breaks
except under allowable situations . . . ." 4
Accused Andal Ampatuan, Jr. (Ampatuan) also led a Motion for
Reconsideration dated June 27, 2011, alleging that the June 14, 2011
Resolution "deprives him of his rights to due process, equal protection,
presumption of innocence, and to be shielded from degrading psychological
punishment." 5
Ampatuan contends that this Court should accord more vigilance in safeguarding
his rights as an accused because the immense publicity and adverse public
opinion which live media coverage can produce would aect everyone, including
the judge, witnesses for the accused, and the families and relatives of all
concerned parties. Ampatuan states that this Court should not bend to the
clamour of pressure groups, such as media journalists, but should push for the
basic judicial and democratic principles of fair play and balanced judicial process.
Ampatuan asserts that "live media coverage of the trial is cruel and degrading
punishment for the accused even before he is convicted by nal judgment." 6
In a Resolution dated July 5, 2011, this Court required Ampatuan to comment on
the Partial Motion for Reconsideration by petitioners Tiamzon and Legarta, and
also required the petitioners to comment on Ampatuan's Motion for
Reconsideration.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Ampatuan led an Opposition dated August 1, 2011, alleging that
"petitioners want to secure conviction by maximizing whatever opportunity
mass communications media will extend to them." 7 Ampatuan asserts that
there is "no content-based restriction, only responsible journalism" 8 with the
guidelines provided by this Court when it mandated that no voice-overs be made
during the live telecast of the hearings. Ampatuan also contends that there was
no undue taking of private property as the coverage is voluntary and only those
who are serious enough may avail of the opportunity to report on the hearings.
Ampatuan maintains that "media coverage must not be allowed as it infringes on
his constitutional rights to fair trial, presumption of innocence and to an
impartial tribunal . . . ." 9
Petitioners National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), et al.
led a Motion for Leave of Court to File Comment (to Tiamzon and Legarta's
Partial Motion for Reconsideration) dated August 15, 2011, alleging that while
they were not directed by this Court to comment on their co-petitioners' partial
motion for reconsideration, they deemed it necessary to le a comment in order
to clarify some matters that may aect its resolution. IDTSaC

In their Consolidated Comment (to Tiamzon and Legarta's Partial Motion for
Reconsideration and Ampatuan's Motion for Reconsideration) dated August 15,
2011, petitioners NUJP, et al. allege that Ampatuan's motion for reconsideration
has failed to present new and convincing arguments that would merit reversal of
this Court's ruling in the June 14, 2011 Resolution.
Petitioners NUJP, et al. declare that they opted not to le a motion for
reconsideration since they recognize the good faith underlying the gestures of
this Court, specically in providing in paragraph (k) of the guidelines that called
for the creation of a special committee. This, according to petitioners NUJP, et al.
shows that this Court is "giving room for exibility and experimentation and is
aware that the guidelines cannot possibly anticipate all the problems and
concerns that live television coverage of the Ampatuan trial will encounter." 10
Moreover, petitioners NUJP, et al. aver that this Court, through the Court
Administrator, has already addressed some of the concerns of the petitioner-
media practitioners through a dialogue on June 22, 2011.
Th e Oce of the Solicitor General (OSG) led a Comment dated August
24, 2011, for President Benigno S. Aquino III, alleging that the arguments
raised in Ampatuan's motion for reconsideration are a mere rehash of the issues
which have already been judiciously passed upon by this Court. The OSG
maintains that "the coverage by live media of hearings neither constitutes a
barbarous act nor inicts upon the accused inhuman physical harm or torture
that is shocking to the conscience. The fact that more than the usual number of
court attendees could witness the criminal trial will not convert the attendance
thereto into a degrading and cruel punishment." 11 The OSG avers that
Ampatuan failed to adduce any new matter to modify the Resolution of this
Court. DcITaC

Upon reconsideration, and after weighing once more the rights guaranteed by
the Constitution that are involved in this case, this Court partially grants
reconsideration of the June 14, 2011 Resolution. For reasons to be discussed
below, this Court is now disallowing the live media broadcast of the trial of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 "Maguindanao massacre" cases but is still allowing the lming of the proceedings
for (1) the real-time transmission to specied viewing areas, and (2)
documentation.
The Court in the June 14, 2011 Resolution recognized "the impossibility of
accommodating even the parties to the cases the private
complainants/families of the victims and other witnesses inside the
courtroom," as there were 57 victims and 197 accused that were involved, and
under strict guidelines, made use of modern technology "to provide the only
solution to break the inherent limitations of the courtroom, to satisfy the
imperative of a transparent, open and public trial." 12
Upon review of the matter, however, the Court has sought a way to provide a
public trial as required by the Constitution 13 and the Rules, 14 which is a right
granted to the accused, without inviting media frenzy that aect the due process
rights of the accused in this high-prole case.
While this Court recognizes the freedom of the press and the right to public
information, which, by the way, are rights that belong to non-direct parties to
the case, the rights of the direct parties should not be forgotten. In a clash
among these competing interests and in terms of the values the Constitution
recognizes, jurisprudence makes it clear that the balance should always be
weighed in favor of the accused. 15
The constitutional rights specic to the accused under Section 14, Article III of the
Constitution such as the right to due process of law, 16 to be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved, 17 and to an impartial and public trial 18 and the
requirement of the highest quantum of proof 19 to justify deprivation of his
liberty (or even of his life) provide more than ample justication to take a second
look at the view that a camera that broadcasts the proceedings live on television
has no place in a criminal trial because of its prejudicial eects on the rights of
accused individuals. DTcASE

This Court, in Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President
Corazon C. Aquino's Libel Case, 20 found that the live coverage of judicial
proceedings involve an inherent denial of due process, which we quote:
Experience likewise has established the prejudicial eect of telecasting on
witnesses. Witnesses might be frightened, play to the camera, or become
nervous. They are subject to extraordinary out-of-court inuences which
might aect their testimony. Also, telecasting not only increases the trial
judge's responsibility to avoid actual prejudice to the defendant, it may as
well aect his own performance. Judges are human beings also and are
subject to the same psychological reactions as laymen. For the
defendant, telecasting is a form of mental harassment and subjects him
to excessive public exposure and distracts him from the eective
presentation of his defense.

The television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionally or

inadvertently can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the
public. 21

In this case that has achieved notoriety and sensational status, a greater degree
of care is required to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused. To be in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the best position to weigh the conicting testimonies of the witnesses, the judge
must not be aected by any outside force or inuence. Like any human being,
however, a judge is not immune from the pervasive eects of media. 22
So must the witnesses be shielded from the pressure of being aware that their
testimony is broadcasted live over television and radio, to be scrutinized and
judged by the court of public opinion. A witness' behavior and self-consciousness
before the camera in a high-prole case such as this case might compromise the
reliability of the fact-nding process, which in turn could skew the judge's
assessment of his or her credibility, necessarily aecting the resolution of the
case. cEaCTS

In a constitutional sense, public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. 23

The right to a public trial belongs to the accused. The requirement of a public trial
is satised by the opportunity of the members of the public and the press to
attend the trial and to report what they have observed. 24 The accused's right to
a public trial should not be confused with the freedom of the press and the
public's right to know as a justication for allowing the live broadcast of the trial.
The tendency of a high prole case like the subject case to generate undue
publicity with its concomitant undesirable eects weighs heavily against
broadcasting the trial. Moreover, the fact that the accused has legal remedies
after the fact is of no moment, since the damage has been done and may be
irreparable. It must be pointed out that the fundamental right to due process of
the accused cannot be aorded after the fact but must be protected at the rst
instance.
To address the physical impossibility of accommodating the large number of
interested parties inside the courtroom in Camp Bagong Diwa, it is not necessary
to allow the press to broadcast the proceedings here and abroad, but the Court
may allow the opening of closed-circuit viewing areas outside the courtroom
where those who may be so minded can come and watch the proceedings. This
out-of-court, real-time viewing grants to a larger audience the opportunity to
monitor the proceedings as if they were inside the trial court but at the same
time obviates the massive publicity entailed in media broadcasting. This is
similar to the procedure adopted by this Court in allowing members of the public
to watch its oral arguments at a viewing area outside of the Session Hall where a
large monitor projects the images and sounds from inside the Session Hall in real
time.
Aside from providing a viewing area outside the courtroom in Camp Bagong
Diwa, closed-circuit viewing areas can also be opened in selected trial courts in
Maguindanao, Koronadal, South Cotabato, and General Santos City where most
of the relatives of the accused and the victims reside, enabling them to watch
the trial without having to come to Camp Bagong Diwa. These viewing areas will,
at all times, be under the control of the trial court judges involved, subject to this
Court's supervision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:
1.DENY the Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated June 29,
2011 of petitioners Editha Mirandilla Tiamzon and
Glenna Legarta;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 2.PARTIALLY GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration dated
June 27, 2011 led by accused Andal Ampatuan, Jr. and
to MODIFY this Court's Resolution dated June 14, 2011, by
disallowing the live media broadcast of the trial in Criminal
Case Nos. Q-09-162148-72, Q-09-162216-31, Q-10-162652-
66, and Q-10-163766, subject to the following guidelines on
audio-visual recording and streaming of the video coverage:
a.An audio-visual recording of the Maguindanao massacre
cases may be made both for documentary purposes and
for transmittal to specied closed-circuit viewing areas:
(i) outside the courtroom, within the Camp Bagong
D i w a ' s premises; and (ii) selected trial courts in
Maguindanao, Koronadal, South Cotabato, and General
Santos City where the relatives of the accused and the
victims reside. Said trial courts shall be identied by the
Oce of the Court Administrator. These viewing areas
shall be under the control of the trial court judges
involved, subject to this Court's supervision.aIcDCH

b.The viewing area will be installed to accommodate the public

who want to observe the proceedings within the Camp
Bagong Diwa premises. The streaming of this video
coverage within the dierent court premises in
Mindanao will be installed so that the relatives of the
parties and the interested public can watch the
proceedings in real time.
c.A single xed compact camera shall be installed
inconspicuously inside the courtroom to provide a single
wide-angle full-view of the sala of the trial court. No
panning and zooming shall be allowed to avoid unduly
highlighting or downplaying incidents in the proceedings.
The camera and the necessary equipment shall be
operated and controlled only by a duly designated ocial
or employee of the Supreme Court.
d.The transmittal of the audio-visual recording from inside the
courtroom to the closed-circuit viewing areas shall be
conducted in such a way that the least physical
disturbance shall be ensured in keeping with the dignity
and solemnity of the proceedings. CHATEa

e.The Public Information Oce and the Oce of the Court

Administrator shall coordinate and assist the trial courts
involved on the physical set-up of the camera and
equipment.
f.The original audio-recording shall be deposited in the National
Museum and the Records Management and Archives
Oce for preservation and exhibition in accordance with
law.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 g.The audio-visual recording of the proceedings and its
transmittal shall be made under the control of the trial
court which may issue supplementary directives, as the
exigency requires, subject to this Court's supervision.
h.In all cases, the witnesses should be excluded from watching
the proceedings, whether inside the courtroom or in the
designated viewing areas. The Presiding Judge shall issue
the appropriate orders to insure compliance with this
directive and for the imposition of appropriate sanctions
for its violation." Carpio, J., on ocial leave. Del Castillo,
J., on leave. Perez, J., on ocial leave. (adv98)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL

Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.In Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases
Against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, A.M. Nos. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-
6-SC and 10-11-7-SC, June 14, 2011, 652 SCRA 1.
2.Trial involving charges for 57 counts of murder and an additional charge of rebellion
against 197 accused, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-162148-72, Q-09-
162216-31, Q-10-162652-66, and Q-10-163766, commonly entitled People v.
Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., et al., being heard by Presiding Judge Jocelyn Solis-
Reyes of Branch 221 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City inside
Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig City.
3.Rollo (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC), p. 467; Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated June
29, 2011.
4.Id. at 473.
5.Id. at 489; Motion for Reconsideration dated June 27, 2011.

6.Id. at 501.
7.Id. at 538; Opposition dated August 1, 2011.
8.Id. at 540.
9.Id. at 545.

10.Id. at 589; Consolidated Comment dated August 15, 2011.

11.Id. at 621-622; Comment dated August 24, 2011.
12.In Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases
Against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, supra note 1 at 13-14.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 13.Article III, Section 4.
14.Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, eective December 1, 2000.
Rule 115, SECTION 1. Rights of accused at the trial. In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be entitled to the following rights:
xxx xxx xxx
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. (Emphasis added.)

15.Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder
Cases Against the Former President Joseph E. Estrada, Perez v. Estrada, 412
Phil. 686, 704-705 (2001).
16.CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14 (1).

17.Id. at Sec. 14 (2).

18.Id.
19.Proof beyond reasonable doubt. See RULES OF COURT, Rule 134, Section 2.
20.En Banc Resolution dated October 22, 1991.
21.Id., citing Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965).

22.See Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion in Biraogo v. Philippine

Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. Nos. 192935 and 193036, December 7, 2010,
637 SCRA 78, 335 and Supplemental Opinion of Associate Justice Arturo D.
Brion in Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, December 14, 2010,
638 SCRA 104, 197.
23.Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder
Cases Against the Former President Joseph E. Estrada, Perez v. Estrada, supra
note 15 at 715-716.
24.Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 610 (U.S. 1978).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com