Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Notice of Resolution Re Ruling On The Live Coverage of Ampatuan Trial
Notice of Resolution Re Ruling On The Live Coverage of Ampatuan Trial
,.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
"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 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 specific guidelines fully set forth in said Resolution.
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., eta/., being heard by
Presiding Judge Jocelyn So lis-Reyes of Branch 221 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City inside Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig City.
Rollo (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC), p. 467; Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated June 29, 2011.
Notice of Resolution - 2- A.M. Nos. 10-11-5-SC
10-11-6-SC & 10-11-7-SC
October 23, 2012
Petitioners Tiamzon and Legarta take issue on provisos (t), (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 effect" 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
outfits to commit practically [a] big chunk of their resources to the coverage of the trial
without any commercial breaks except under allowable situations x x x." 4
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 affect 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 final
judgment. " 6
Id. at 473.
Id. at 489; Motion for Reconsideration dated June 27, 20 ll.
6
Id. at 501.
Id. at 538; Opposition dated August l, 2011.
Id. at 540.
9
Id. at 545.
Notice of Resolution -3- A.M. Nos. 10-11-5-SC
10-11-6-SC & 10-11-7-SC
October 23, 2012
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 file a motion for
reconsideration since they recognize the good faith underlying the gestures of this Court,
specifically 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 flexibility 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.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment dated August 24,
2011, for President Benigno S. Aquino Ill, 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 inflicts 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.
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 "Maguindanao massacre" cases
but is still allowing the filming of the proceedings for (1) the real-time transmission to
specified 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
10
Id. at 589; Consolidated Comment dated August 15, 2011.
II
Id. at 621-622; Comment dated August 24, 20 II.
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.
13
Article III, Section 4.
14
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, effective December 1, 2000.
Rule 115, SECTION 1. Rights of accused at the trial.-Jn all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be entitled to the following rights:
xxxx
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. (Emphasis added.)
Notice of Resolution - 4- A.M. Nos. 10-11-5-SC
10-11-6-SC & 10-11-7-SC
October 23, 2012
the accused, without inviting media frenzy that affect the due process rights of the
accused in this high-profile 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 specific 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 proof19 to justify deprivation of his liberty (or even of his life)
provide more than ample justification 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 effects on the rights of accused individuals.
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:
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 the best
position to weigh the conflicting testimonies of the witnesses, the judge must not be
affected by any outside force or influence. Like any human being, however, a judge is
not immune from the pervasive effects of media. 22
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 (200 1).
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 Bane Resolution dated October 22, 1991.
21
ld., 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.
Notice ofResolution - 5- A.M. Nos. 10-11-5-SC
10-11-6-SC & 10-11-7-SC
October 23, 2012
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-profile case such as this case might compromise the reliability of the
fact-finding process, which in turn could skew the judge's assessment of his or her
credibility, necessarily affecting the resolution of the case.
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.
1. DENY the Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated June 29, 2011 of
petitioners Editha Mirandilla Tiamzon and Glenna Legarta;
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).
Notice ofResolution -6- A.M. Nos. 10-11-5-SC
10-11-6-SC & 10-11-7-SC
October 23, 2012
ENRI 4----~AL
~,~:;-court "'tl
Resolution -7- A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC
and A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC
October 23, 2012
His Excellency President Benigno S. Aquino Ill (reg) Hon. Jocelyn A. Solis-Reyes (x)
Malacanang Palace San Miguel, Manila Presiding Judge
Regional Trial Court, Branch 221
The Solicitor General (x) Quezon City
ASG Roman G. del Rosario (x)
Associate Solicitor Judy A. Lardizabal (x) Attys. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun & Gregorio Y.
Office of the Solicitor General Narvasa (reg)
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village Fortun Narvasa & Salazar Law Offices
1229 Makati City Counsels for Accused Andal Ampatuan, Jr.
23rd Fir., Multinational Bancorporation
Attys. Romeo T. Capulong, Rachel F. Pastores, Centre
Francis Anthony Principe, Mary Kathryn G. Sison, No. 6805 Ayala Avenue, 1229 Makati City.
Rolando Rico C. Olalia, Amylyn B. Sato, Jose
Christopher Y. Belmonte, Philip D. Sawali and Mr. Jerry Yap (reg)
Rom-Voltaire C. Quizon (reg) President, National Press Club of the Philippines
Counsel for Petitioners in A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC Mr. Benny D. Antiporda (reg)
4/F Kaija Bldg., 7836 Makati Ave. cor. President, Alyansa ng Pilipinong Mamamayan
Valdez St.,Makati City Rm. 305 National Press Club Building
Magallanes Drive, lntramuros, Manila
Roque and ButuyanLaw Offices (reg)
Counsel for Editha M. Tiamzon & Glenna Legarta The Presiding Judge (reg)
1904 Antel 2000 Corporate Center Regional Trial Court, Branch 78
121 Valero St.,1200 Salcedo Village, Makati City Quezon City