Coverage guidelines worry prosecution

A day after the Supreme Court gave the green light for the live coverage of the Maguindanao massacre trial, prosecution lawyers, who were initially elated, are now worried that the coverage guidelines may be unlawful.

“Though we’re happy that finally, the Supreme Court has granted the victims’ request for live coverage….When we read the guidelines that the media should continue to cover the hearings from start to finish, we thought that’s a violation of media rights, because [the SC] is deciding what the media could or could not broadcast,” prosecution lawyer Harry Roque said, in Filipino.

He added that editorial discretion on what to broadcast is the decision of media outlets, not the Supreme Court, otherwise it would be a “violation of press freedom,” the Constitution and jurisprudence in the Philippines and abroad.

While agreeing with other coverage guidelines such as having no commercial breaks, barring cameras from focusing on parties, and barring live commentary inside the court room, Roque found the required full and uninterrupted broadcast of proceedings a “deprivation of due process—airtime is the property right of media.”

He said it would be irrational for media outlets to give the air time for free.

Roque urged media outlets to seek clarifications on the guidelines.

“We asked for the live coverage because if the victims’ families can’t come here to Metro Manila, they can watch it on TV. But if no media outlet is willing to air because of the guidelines,” that cause will be nullified, he pointed out.

Defense lawyers declined to comment on the high court’s decision. They have yet to formally receive copies of the resolution, Paris Real told reporters.

But Malacanañg is happy with the court decision allowing live media coverage of the trial.

“We reiterate our call to the public, to take opportunity to follow coverage of the trial. This is a historic opportunity to see our justice system at work, and to understand how such horrific crime could take place,” Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said during Wednesday’s news briefing in Malacañang.

Told of the media’s complaints against the guidelines, Lacierda said, “I can only ask them to raise it up again before the Supreme Court.”

Midas Marquez, Supreme Court spokesperson, said the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) and other news organizations could still seek a revision of the guidelines set by the court.

According to Marquez, the court’s prohibition on airing news and commercial breaks while the live telecast of the trial is ongoing “stays” unless the resolution was amended.

University of the East law dean Amado Valdez said the live broadcast could only highlight “the drama of the process and not the substantial justice,” referring to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

“With all due respect to the Supreme Court, I am against [live coverage] because people might be misled into making conclusions on the case,” Valdez said.

“It could erode the confidence of the people not only in the judicial system but also in the law profession,” he said. With reports from Norman Bordadora, Miko Morelos, Marlon Ramos and Jocelyn R. Uy