SolGen asks SC to reconsider ban on live broadcast of massacre trial
INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines–The Office of the Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its earlier decision banning the live broadcast coverage of court hearings of the 2009 Maguindanao massacre.
In a motion for reconsideration, Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza said the live radio and television coverage of the trial will not be prejudicial to the constitutional rights of the accused.
Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221, who is hearing the multiple murder case, was furnished a copy of the pleading.
In an en banc resolution on Oct. 23, the Supreme Court partially granted accused Andal Ampatuan Jr.’s motion for reconsideration of its June 14, 2011 ruling.
The high court ruled that in a clash among the competing interests, the balance should always be weighed in favor of the accused.
But the OSG stressed that the case should be covered live as “it is through public showing of the trial that transparency in the administration of justice is achieved.”
The government added that keeping the landmark trial away from the public eye wanes the interest and attention of the people as years go by.
“Media coverage of trials of sensational cases–moreso, those where the accused are reasonably perceived as politically well-entrenched, financially strong and violently capable–should instead be encouraged,” the pleading read.
The Public Interest Law Center, which represents some of the heirs of the 57 massacre victims, has also filed a similar appeal before the Supreme Court.
According to the OSG, the live media coverage of judicial proceedings should be viewed generally for it is and for its propitious influence to the administration of justice.
“To be sure, while pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of the accused to a fair trial, the impartiality of a judge is not necessarily affected,” the government lawyers noted.
The OSG also stressed that “a criminal case is not decided by the mob of opinion but by a judge who is learned in law and whose impartiality is expectedly unaffected by a barrage of publicity.”
