AM 01 4 03 SC; (June, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C. June 29, 2001
Case Parties:
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE HERNANDO PEREZ, KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER NG PILIPINAS, CESAR SARINO, RENATO CAYETANO and ATTY. RICARDO ROMULO, petitioners, vs. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA and INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositors.
FACTS
The Kapisanan ng mga Broadkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) requested the Supreme Court to allow live radio and television coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan to assure “full transparency in the proceedings.” This request was seconded by Cesar N. Sarino, Senator Renato Cayetano, and Atty. Ricardo Romulo. Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez formally filed a petition, arguing that the cases involve a matter of public concern and interest, and that the constitutional right of the people to be informed can best be served by allowing live coverage, which would also ensure transparency and disabuse unfounded notions of railroading the cases. The petition sought a re-examination of the Court’s 23 October 1991 resolution in a libel case involving then President Corazon C. Aquino, which prohibited live radio and television coverage of court proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether live radio and television coverage of the trial of the plunder cases against former President Joseph E. Estrada should be allowed.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and PROHIBITED live radio and television coverage of the trial. The Court upheld its 1991 resolution, emphasizing the need to balance constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information against the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and a fair and impartial trial. The Court ruled that when these rights conflict, the right of the accused must be preferred. It identified several areas of potential prejudice from live coverage, as established in Estes vs. Texas: the impact on the jury, witnesses, the trial judge, and the defendant. The Court found that such coverage could turn the trial into a public spectacle, subject participants to mental harassment and outside influences, distract from the orderly quest for truth, and undermine the dignity and solemnity of judicial proceedings. The Court concluded that the freedom of the press and the right to information could be served by less prejudicial means, such as print media and restricted video footage taken prior to proceedings, without compromising the accused’s right to due process and a fair trial.