A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC, 10-11-7-SC

Case Summary (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC, 10-11-7-SC)

Petitions and Reliefs Sought

• A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC: Permit live television and radio coverage of the Maguindanao massacre trial; allow still cameras, tape recorders, and other recording devices; formulate broadcast guidelines.
• A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC: Constitute Branch 221 as a special court exclusively for the massacre cases; install video cameras inside the courtroom and monitors outside for public viewing.
• A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC: Presidential letter supporting live media coverage.

Key Dates

• November 23, 2009 – 57 persons, including 32 journalists, killed in Maguindanao (“Maguindanao Massacre”).
• November 19–22, 2010 – Filing of the three administrative petitions before the Supreme Court.
• November 23, 2010 – Consolidation of A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC and A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC.
• June 14, 2011 – En Banc Resolution granting partial relief.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution – Freedom of the press (Art. III, Sec. 4), right to public information (Art. III, Sec. 7), right to a fair and public trial (Art. III, Sec. 14), court’s power to control its proceedings (Art. VIII, Sec. 5).
• Rules of Court, Rule 119, Sec. 21 – Grounds for exclusion of the public from court proceedings.

Prior Jurisprudence

• Aquino Libel Case (1991) – Outright prohibition of live broadcast to protect trial dignity and accused’s due-process rights; video limited to pre-trial footage.
• Estrada Plunder Trial (2001) – Denial of live coverage; later allowed full audio-visual recording for documentary purposes under strict conditions.
• U.S. and Other Foreign Models – Recognition that outright bans lack empirical support and that safeguards, rather than prohibitions, better reconcile rights.

Issues Presented

Whether the absolute ban on live television and radio coverage should be lifted.
How to balance press freedom and public’s right to information against the accused’s right to due process and dignified proceedings.

Analysis

• Restrictions on constitutional rights must be narrowly tailored; outright prohibition is disfavored when regulation is possible.
• Prior rulings relied on speculative “risks” of media technology, without Philippine-specific empirical support.
• Technological neutrality: risks can be managed by safeguards rather than blunt bans.
• Public trial principle demands open doors for a reasonable number of observers; current courtroom capacity cannot accommodate victims’ families and other interested parties.
• Legal remedies (venue change, continuance, disqualification, gag orders, contempt powers) exist to address actual prejudice, not mere fear of influence.

Resolution and Guidelines

The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTS pro hac vice the petition for live television and radio coverage of the Maguindanao massacre trial, subject to the following conditions:

AUDIO-VISUAL RECORDING
• Full trial proceedings may be recorded for documentary and live broadcast purposes.
MEDIA APPLICATION
• Entities must file an application with the trial court, detailing equipment, technical plan, and agreement to cover entire proceedings.
CAMERA SET-UP
• Single fixed, inconspicuous wide-angle camera inside the courtroom; no panning or zooming; operated by Supreme Court-designated personnel.
• Minimal, unobtrusive microphones and wiring; no visible signal indicators.
TRANSMITTAL
• Media entities to establish links with minimal disturbance: wireless technology or single common web platform; encrypted, exclusive real-time access.
CONTINUOUS COVERAGE
• Broadcast must be continuous and complete each court day, except during recesses or when the public is excluded under Rule 119, Sec. 21.
CONTENT RESTRICTIONS
• No commercial

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC, 10-11-7-SC)

Facts of the Maguindanao Massacre and Trial Venue

On November 23, 2009, fifty-seven persons—including thirty-two journalists and media practitioners—were ambushed and killed on their way to Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao.
The incident became known as the “Maguindanao Massacre,” the worst election-related violence in recent Philippine history and the most brutal killing of journalists.
The Department of Justice filed 57 counts of murder and one count of rebellion against 197 accused. The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-162148-72; Q-09-162216-31; Q-10-162652-66; and Q-10-163766, collectively styled People v. Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., et al.
Following a transfer of venue and reraffling, Branch 221 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (presided by Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes) at Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City, was designated to hear the consolidated cases.

Procedural History of the Petitions

November 19, 2010: NUJP, ABS-CBN, GMA, relatives of the victims, individual journalists, and members of the academe filed A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC seeking live radio/TV coverage, permission for recording devices in court, and guidelines for media coverage.
November 22, 2010: National Press Club and Alyansa ng Filipinong Mamamahayag filed A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC requesting (a) designation of Branch 221 as a special court devoted solely to the massacre trial and (b) installation of video cameras to beam proceedings to monitors outside the courtroom.
November 22, 2010: President Benigno S. Aquino III sent a letter (docketed A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC) supporting live media coverage of the massacre trial.
By separate resolutions dated November 23, 2010, the Supreme Court consolidated A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC with A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC; A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC was to be treated in a separate resolution.

Core Legal Issues Presented

Whether the absolute ban on live radio and television coverage of court proceedings should be lifted or modified in the massacre trial.
Whether recording devices (still cameras, tape recorders) should be allowed inside the courtroom to assist working journalists.
Whether Branch 221 should be constituted as a special court handling only the Maguindanao Massacre cases.
What guidelines or safeguards should govern any permitted live broadcast, in light of constitutional rights to press freedom, public information, and a fair trial.

Petitioners’ Arguments for Live Coverage

The total prohibition stems from dicta in two prior rulings—Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon Aquino’s Libel Case (1991) and Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Sandiganbayan Trial of Former President Estrada (2001)—and should be revisited under the narrow-restriction rule for limitations on constitutional rights.
Media coverage of the massacre trial is intensely important given the magnitude and bru