MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court stuck to its guns on Wednesday, maintaining that live, but regulated media coverage of the controversial Maguindanao massacre trial is necessary, and that footage of the trial must be in full, or violating entities will have to take the risk for their actions.
This was clarified by Supreme Court Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said during a dialogue with relatives of the massacre victims and their attorneys, officials of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) , as well as representatives from various television networks, radio, print, online news, and foreign press agencies.
After a meeting, the NUJP said it will no longer appeal the guidelines for the live media coverage of the Maguindanao massacre trial.
Rowena Paraan of the NUJP said they understood the purpose of the high court’s strict guidelines for the live media coverage and “that is for the public to understand what is really happening on the case.”
Speaking to reporters, Paraan said the meeting with Marquez provided clarity, making it easier for media networks to work around the guidelines.
Fifty-seven people, including 32 journalists, were killed in the Nov. 23, 2009 massacre blamed on the powerful Ampatuan clan.
Among the SC’s guidelines is the prohibition of commercial breaks or voice-overs by news anchors. The guidelines also said that those who ask permission to air the trial live must cover the proceedings in full until a decision is promulgated.
The NUJP was among the groups that initially found the rules too strict.
During the dialogue, a question was asked if the live telecast could be interrupted in case there were other breaking stories of urgency nature, such as earthquakes or explosions. Marquez answered that “airing should continue. The guideline is categorical…The worst that can happen is your permit will be revoked,” he said.
Marquez explained that “the public is not only after the main decision. They also want to find out the basis of the other orders of the court. Only a full coverage can satisfy this.”
“For example, if you failed to hear the basis in sustaining an objection, the public will immediately have an opinion on that..that is what we want to avoid and that is the purpose of the coverage in its entirety,” Marquez elaborated.
Last week, the high court, in a unanimous decision, allowed the petition of some media groups and families of the victims to have live radio, television and online coverage of the Maguindanao massacre trial subject to several conditions.
The guidelines are:
1. an audio-visual recording of the Maguindanao massacre cases may be made
both for documentary purposes and for transmittal to live broadcast
broadcasting;
2. media entities must file with the trial court a letter of application,
manifesting that they intend to broadcast the audio-visual recording (AVR)
of the proceedings; no selective or partial coverage shall be allowed and
no media entity shall be allowed to broadcast the proceedings without an
application duly approved by the trial court;
3. a single fixed compact camera shall be installed inconspicuously inside
the courtroom to provide a single wide-angle full-view of the sala of the
trial court;
4. no panning and zooming shall be allowed to avoid unduly highlighting or
downplaying incidents in the proceedings x x x x
5. the broadcasting of the proceedings for a particular day must be
continuous and in its entirety;
6. no commercial break or any other gap shall be allowed until the day’s
proceedings are adjourned, except during the period of recess call by the
trial court and during portions of the proceedings wherein the public is
ordered excluded;
7. the proceedings shall be broadcast without any voice-overs, except brief
annotations of scenes depicted therein as may be necessary to explain them
at the start or at the end of the scene;
8. no repeat airing of the AVR shall be allowed until after the finality of
judgment, except brief footages and still images derived from or
cartographic sketches of scenes based on the recording, only for news
purposes, which shall likewise observe the ‘sub judice’ rule, and be subject
to the contempt power of the court.
A committee will be created by the high court which will coordinate with Quezon City Regional Trial Court Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes.
Marquez said during the dialogue on Wednesday that those who intend to record the telecast, edit the video and post it in social networking sites, “we will go after him as an individual, not as a media entity.”
Marquez said it would be better to comply with the guidelines, submit their manifestation letter to the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221 who is handling the case.
Meanwhile, Paraan said despite the NUJP’s earlier criticisms, they still welcome the high court’s decision to allow the live broadcast of the trial. She also said the group is “very happy” with Chief Justice Renato Corona’s order to have the SC’s website host a live webcast of the trial.
“So basically, we are very happy with the decision to allow the live coverage,” Paraan said.