Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda PHOTO/INQUIRER
Malacañang on Monday expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court ban on the live coverage of the Maguindanao massacre trial and hoped the high court would “revisit” this decision.
“Remember that the President asked for a live trial and certainly we would like the Maguindanao massacre trial to be covered live. The decision in the Supreme Court, that’s a little restrictive,” presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said in a briefing.
“I hope that they can revisit their decision—even their decision not to cover it live. I don’t know what prompted them to revisit or to change their mind on the live coverage of the Maguindanao massacre,” Lacierda said.
“It is important for us—both the public and media—to be able to know what’s going on in the Maguindanao massacre trial,” he said.
Lacierda repeated President Aquino’s statement that the trial would be a litmus test of the country’s justice system.
Human rights groups have decried the slow prosecution of the masterminds and their henchmen in the massacre of 58 persons, including 33 journalists, in Maguindanao in 2009. The victims were on their way to witness the filing of a certificate of candidacy for a local politician when they were stopped by some 100 armed men, brutally killed and dumped in a mass grave on a hillside in Ampatuan town.
Leaders of the powerful Ampatuan clan and their followers have been charged in connection with the killings.
Lacierda said Malacañang was hoping that the trial would be done in a “more expeditious (way) without sacrificing due process.” He acknowledged that the judiciary had taken steps to hasten the process.
“For instance, (hearing the case) three times a week already; and the judge, in that case, has been devoted full-time to this trial. My understanding is she has not been given other cases to handle. But, beyond that, I don’t know what steps the Supreme Court or the judiciary is taking to improve the process,” he said.
Guidelines, not ban
“With due respect to the Supreme Court, although I still have to look into the justifications and basis of the decision, I’m always against restricting media coverage because remember the Maguindanao massacre is supposed to be the trial of the century insofar as the Philippine justice system is concerned,” Justice Secretary Leila de Lima told reporters Monday.
“It’s not only us that is interested, but the international community as well,” De Lima said.
Told that among the court’s explanation for the new ruling was the need to protect the rights of the accused, De Lima said that the “remedy should be clear guidelines on how reporting should be done by the media but banning media coverage I think should probably not be (the case).”
On June 14, 2011, the court allowed the live broadcast of the trial by television and radio but subject to certain guidelines of the trial court.
On Oct. 23 this year, however, it reversed itself, explaining the need to protect the rights of the accused as well as the witnesses.
The court resolution was in response to four petitions: The partial motion for reconsideration filed by two relatives of the victims on the guidelines for the coverage which they said constituted prior restraint; Andal Ampatuan Jr.’s motion for reconsideration where he said the live coverage deprived him of his right to due process and equal protection; the consolidated comment of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, which said Ampatuan did not present new and convincing arguments; and a comment by the Office of the Solicitor General for President Aquino that a live media coverage of the hearings “neither constitutes a barbarous act nor inflicts upon the accused inhuman physical harm or torture that is shocking to the conscience.”