Case Summary (A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC)
Petition for Live Coverage
Petitioners argued that the people’s right to information and the freedom of the press, as guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution, outweighed any potential impact on the accused’s fair-trial rights. They maintained that live coverage would enhance transparency, serve as a safeguard against manipulation of judicial processes, and affirm popular sovereignty.
Opposition by Former President Estrada
Estrada contended that live broadcasts would contravene the sub judice rule and risk “expert commentary” that could inflame public demonstrations and pressure the Sandiganbayan. He asserted that the public’s need for information could be satisfied through less intrusive means that would not prejudice his right to a fair and orderly trial.
Motion for Reconsideration Denied
By a vote of nine to six, the Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration of its earlier order prohibiting live or real-time radio–TV coverage. The majority reaffirmed that live broadcasts pose risks of distraction, undue influence on participants, and premature public judgment.
Order for Audio-Visual Recording
Recognizing the historical importance of the proceedings and the public’s interest, eight Justices ordered that the trial be recorded in its entirety for documentary purposes, subject to the following conditions:
• Recordings shall exclude portions the Sandiganbayan deems nonpublic under Rule 119, A21 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Cameras must be installed discreetly, and the movement of media crews strictly regulated to preserve courtroom dignity.
• No commentary shall accompany the recordings, save for necessary explanatory annotations.
• Release of recordings for public showing is prohibited until after the Sandiganbayan has rendered decisions in all related cases; unauthorized broadcasts shall be punishable as contempt.
• The Sandiganbayan shall supervise recording operations and promulgate implementing rules.
• Upon public release, the master audiovisual files shall be deposited with the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office pursuant to Republic Act No. 8492 and Department Order No. 13-A, for historical preservation and exhibition.
Rationale for Documentary Recording
The majority emphasized four principal reasons:
- The trial’s affirmation of the rule of law, even over a former head of state, constitutes a historic event.
- Audio-visual presentation advances the people’s fundamental right to know how government is conducted.
- Such recordings serve educational and civic-training functions.
- A complete audiovisual record aids appellate review and verification of stenographic transcripts, ensuring accuracy and safeguarding fairness without jeopardizing trial integrity.
Constitutional and Procedu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners: Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez; Kapisanan ng Mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas; Cesar Sarino; Renato Cayetano; Atty. Ricardo Romulo.
- Oppositors: Former President Joseph E. Estrada; Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
- Nature of proceeding: Motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior denial of permission for live radio-television coverage of the Sandiganbayan trial for plunder against Estrada.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- No inherent conflict exists between (a) the people’s right to information and the freedom of the press, and (b) the accused’s right to a fair trial.
- In case of a clash, the sovereign people’s right to information and press freedom must prevail.
- Live media coverage serves as a safeguard against misuse of judicial proceedings for private ends.
Opponents’ Objections
- Live coverage would breach the sub judice rule.
- Experience from the impeachment trial shows that “expert commentary” can incite massive public demonstrations to influence the court.
- The public’s right to know can be satisfied by less distracting, degrading, or prejudicial alternatives.
Court’s Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration
- After due deliberation, the Court finds no reason to alter its prior decision denying live broadcast.
- Vote to deny motion: nine (9) Justices (Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Sandoval-Gutierrez) versus six (6) Justices (Davide, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing).
Audio-Visual Recording Order
- In lieu of live broadcast, the Court orders audio-visual recording of the entire trial for documentary purposes.
- Vote to order recording: eight (8) Justices (Davide, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban,