SC disallows live coverage of Ampatuan trial for Maguindanao massacre

Reversing a June 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court has barred live media coverage of the almost three-year-old trial for the grisly Maguindanao massacre, where 58 people—mostly media workers—were killed.

 

In its latest decision, the high court granted a petition filed by the camp of the Ampatuans, asking the SC to reconsider a June 14, 2011 ruling penned by then Associate Justice and now Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales that allowed live coverage of the high-profile trial.

 

"[The court] partially grants the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 27, 2011 filed by accused Andal Ampatuan, Jr. and modifies this Court's Resolution dated June 14, 2011, by disallowing the live media broadcast of the trial," the high court said in a seven-page ruling issued on October 23 but were made known to media only on Monday.

 

Counsels for both the defense and prosecution have yet to respond to GMA News Online's request to get their comments on the latest ruling.

 

In its original ruling, the high court allowed live radio and television coverage of the trial, under certain conditions like requiring media entities to apply for broadcast and to continuously broadcast a hearing with no commercial breaks. The guidelines also disallowed the media from re-airing recordings of the trial and giving annotations while the hearing is on-going.

Audio-visual recordings OK for documentary purposes  

In its latest ruling, however, the court totally scrapped live coverage but allowed audio-visual recordings of the trial for documentary purposes and for transmittal in closed-circuit viewing areas within the Camp Bagong Diwa premises and trial court in Maguindanao, Koronadal, South Cotabato, and General Santos City, where relatives of the victims currently reside.

 

"The viewing area will be installed to accommodate the public who want to observe the proceedings within the Camp Bagong Diwa premises. The streaming of this video coverage within the different court premises in Mindanao will be installed so that the relatives of the parties and the interested public can watch the proceedings in real time," the court said.

 

Witnesses however would be prohibited from watching the proceedings, whether inside the court room or the designated closed-circuit viewing areas.

 

The high court said a single fixed compact camera will be used to provide a wide-angle full view of the sala of the court, with no panning and zooming "to avoid unduly highlighting or downplaying incidents in the proceedings."

 

The SC Public Information Office has likewise been tasked to coordinate and assist trial courts involved in the physical setup of the camera and equipment.

Recordings to be deposited  

The high court also said original recordings of the murder trial shall be deposited to the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for preservation and exhibition in accordance to law.

 

The recordings would be placed under the control of Quezon City Judge Jocelyn SOlis-Reyes of the Regional Trial Court Branch 221, even as she is allowed to issue supplementary directives concerning the audio-visual recording, subject to the SC's supervision.

 

"This out-of-court, real-time viewing grants to a larger audience the opportunity to monitor the proceedings as if they were inside the trial court but at the same time obviates the massive publicity entailed in media broadcasting," the court said.

 

The high court cited its practice during oral arguments at the Supreme Court in which the public is allowed to watch the proceedings through a viewing area just outside the SC Session Hall.

 

In the same ruling, the high court denied a partial motion for reconsideration, separately filed by families of the victims, branding certain guidelines in the high court's June 2011 ruling as prior restraint that infringes on their constitutional right to free expression.

 

"In a constitutional sense, public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial... The accused's right to a public trial should not be confused with the freedom of the press and the public's right to know as a justification for allowing the live broadcast of the trial," the SC said.

 

"The fact that the accused has legal remedies after the fact is of no moment, since the damage has been done and may be irreparable. It must be pointed out that the fundamental right to due process of the accused cannot be afforded after the fact but must be protected at the first instance," it added.