SC asked to reconsider coverage guidelines of Maguindanao massacre trial
MANILA, Philippines – Relatives of the victims in the Maguindanao massacre have asked the Supreme Court to reconsider some of the guidelines it set for the live telecast of the trial.
Editha Mirandilla-Tiamzon and Glenna Lagarta, in their partial motion for reconsideration, urged the high court to reconsider the following guidelines:
* To provide a faithful and complete broadcast of the proceedings; no commercial break or any other gap shall be allowed until the day’s proceedings are adjourned, except during the period of recess called by the trial court and during portions of the proceedings wherein the public is ordered excluded;
* To avoid overriding or superimposing the audio output from the on-going proceedings, 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. Any commentary shall observe the sub judice rule and be subject to the contempt power of the court;
* No repeat airing of the audio-visual recording 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 judicerule and be subject to the contempt power of the court.
Petitioners said these guidelines would “constitute prior restraint because they would tell media what they could and could not report about the Maguindanao massacre trial.”
They added that the condition that there would be no commercial break “constitutes undue taking of property rights.”
“There is no factual basis for the Court to suppose that anything beyond brief factual statements on the proceedings will precipitate a clear and present danger to the Court or to spark a public emergency,” petitioners said.
Besides, they said that there was no substantial government interest to protect from the utterances or reports sought to be prohibited.
The prohibitions set by the high court, petitioners said could produce a “chilling effect” on all forms of expression about the court proceedings.
“It is a sweeping and arbitrary regulation to prohibit any comment on the proceeding in question,” the petitioners said.
The prohibitions set by the high court in its guidelines is a violation of the property rights of the media because the media will technically sacrifice its resources to air the trial twice a week without any commercial breaks.
Petitioners presented two models which it could use as a pattern in the live coverage of the massacre trial – the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and the Supreme Court Michigan rules in covering the oral arguments.
They said, in both models, that there were no prior limitations on what to report or to broadcast but “the judge may order the termination of the coverage if s/he determines that it has become prejudicial to the conduct of a fair trial. But there is no prior prohibition-nay, no prior restraint – on what journalists can say on air about what is taking place.”
