A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC.

June 29, 2001]

RE: REQUEST RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN THE

SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST THE
FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE HERNANDO PEREZ, KAPISANAN NG MGA
BRODKASTER NG PILIPINAS, CESAR SARINO, RENATO
CAYETANO and ATTY. RICARDO ROMULO, petitioners,
vs. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA and INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES, oppositors.

.Case Nature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Petition to Allow

Live Radio and TV Coverage of the Court Hearings on the Plunder and Other
Criminal Cases Filed Against Former President Joseph Estrada, et al.

Syllabi Class : Constitutional Law|Due Process|Freedom of the Press|Right to

Information|Mass Media|Radio and Television|Right to Public Trial|Freedom of
Speech and Press|Equal Protection|Criminal Due Process
Constitutional Law; Due Process; Freedom of the Press; Right to Information; Mass Media; Radio
and Television; When the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public
information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand, along
with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial
race against one another, jurisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred to
win.The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involve the weighing out of the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information, on the one
hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional
power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. When these rights
race against one another, jurisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred to
win.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same.Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of
innocence until the contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted above its individual settings nor made
an object of publics attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside
force or influence but only by evidence and argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and
calm ambiance is demanded.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It must also be conceded that television can work
profound changes in the behavior of the people it focuses on.Witnesses and judges may very well
be men and women of fortitude, able to thrive in hardy climate, with every reason to presume
firmness; of mind and resolute endurance, but it must also be conceded that television can work
profound changes in the behavior of the people it focuses on. Even while it may be difficult to
quantify the influence, or pressure that media can bring to bear on them directly and through the
shaping of public opinion, it is a fact, nonetheless, that, indeed, it does so in so many ways and in
varying degrees. The conscious or unconscious effect that such a coverage may have on the
testimony of witnesses and the decision of judges cannot be evaluated but, it can likewise be said, it
is not at all unlikely for a vote of guilt or innocence to yield to it. It might be farcical to build around
them an impregnable armor against the influence of the most powerful media of public opinion. To
say that actual prejudice should first be present would leave to near nirvana the subtle threats to
justice that a disturbance of the mind so indispensable to the calm and deliberate dispensation of
justice can create. The effect of television may escape the ordinary means of proof, but it is not far-
fetched for it to gradually erode our basal conception of a trial such as we know it now.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Right to Public Trial; An accused has a right to a public
trial but it is a right that belongs to him, more than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held
critically in balance.An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him,
more than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. A public trial aims to
ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not
compromised in secrete conclaves of long ago. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial;
it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in the available
seats, conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. In the constitutional sense, a
courtroom should have enough facilities for a reasonable number of the public to observe the
proceedings, not too small as to render the openness negligible and not too large as to distract the
trial participants from their proper functions, who shall then be totally free to report what they have
observed during the proceedings.

KAPUNAN, J., Concurring Opinion:

Constitutional Law; Due Process; Freedom of Speech and Press; Right to Information; Mass Media;
Radio and Television; In weighing the freedoms of speech and the press and the right to public
information, on one hand, and the right of the accused to a fair trial, on the other, the balance is
never weighed against the accused.While the rights to press freedom and to information on
matters of public concern are constitutionally protected in acknowledgment of medias role as a
potent catalyst in increasing public awareness and interest in governmental affairs as well as other
significant events and occurrences, including court proceedings, and of the importance of the free
flow of ideas and information in a democracy these are not absolute and must be taken hand-in-
hand with other public interests. In weighing the freedoms of speech and the press and the right to
public information, on one hand, and the right of the accused to a fair trial, on the other, the balance
is never weighed against the accused.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A public trial is not to be equated with a publicized trial,
one characterized by pervasive adverse publicity that violates the accuseds constitutional right to
due process.It bears emphasizing that the right to a public trial belongs first and foremost to the
accused. Said right requires that proceedings be open to the public to ensure that the accused is
fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned. The openness of a trial safeguards against attempts to
employ the courts as instruments of persecution since it induces all the participants therein, e.g.
judge, lawyers, witnesses, to perform their duties conscientiously, and provides the public with an
opportunity to observe the events therein. However, a public trial is not to be equated with a
publicized trial, one characterized by pervasive adverse publicity that violates the accuseds
constitutional right to due process.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Undoubtedly, television is one of the most powerful
sources of information and news in our society, but it is also one of the most manipulative.That the
live broadcast coverage of the criminal proceedings may undermine the right of the accused to a fair
trial cannot be ignored. Undoubtedly, television is one of the most powerful sources of information
and news in our society. However, it is also one of the most manipulative. It can, intentionally or
inadvertently, destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public. It cannot deny the accused
of his right to due process, including the right to a fair trial.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The mere presence of the television camera inside the
courtroom also inevitably affects the proceedings being covered for television can work profound
changes in the behavior of the people it focuses on.The transmission of edited images on
television or the accompanying commentaries are not the only possible sources of bias which may
unduly influence the outcome of a trial. The mere presence of the television camera inside the
courtroom also inevitably affects the proceedings being covered for television can work profound
changes in the behavior of the people it focuses on.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Judges and justices are also human beingsthey cannot
remain oblivious to the pressures that media can bear on them both directly and in the shaping of
public opinion.Judges and justices are also human beings. They cannot remain oblivious to the
pressures that media can bear on them both directly and in the shaping of public opinion. Thus, any
occasion that would give the impression that in rendering judgment, the judge was swayed by public
opinion or any other factor extraneous to the evidence at hand should be avoided. As Chief Justice
Taft in Tumey vs. Ohio, eloquently put it: x x x the requirement of due process of law in judicial
procedure is not satisfied by the argument that men of the highest honor and the greatest self-
sacrifice could carry it on without danger of injustice. Every procedure which would offer a possible
temptation to the average man . . . to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or
which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the
accused, denies the latter due process of law.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J., Concurring Opinion:

Constitutional Law; Due Process; Equal Protection; Mass Media; Radio and Television; To allow the
live television coverage of Mr. Joseph Ejercito Estradas trial in the Sandiganbayan will violate his
right to equal protection of the law, to due process and to a fair and impartial hearing.I believe that
to allow the live television coverage of Mr. Joseph Ejercito Estradas trial in the Sandiganbayan will
violate his right to equal protection of the law, to due process and to a fair and impartial hearing. Not
even the other constitutionally-guaranteed rights, such as the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern, to free speech and to a free press, can serve as more weighty
justifications.

Same; Same; The job of the judiciary is not to teach the public of its inner workings but to preserve
fairness within the system.The job of the judiciary is not to teach the public of its inner workings
but to preserve fairness within the system. No empirical evidence exists which indicates that
televised criminal proceedings broaden the publics understanding of the judiciary. The New York
University conducted a study following an enactment of legislation prescribing an eighteen-month
experimental period of televising criminal trials. The results indicated that viewing criminal trials had
virtually no effect on the level of the public understanding of even the most rudimentary aspects of
court proceedings.

Same; Same; Freedom of the Press; With intense coverage, the media becomes less of a defensive
force against injustice and more of an offensive force by intimidating witnesses, distracting the
lawyers and distorting the unfolding drama in the courtroom.In sum, the theory that televising the
trial ensures that justice is served is not true. With intense coverage, the media becomes less of a
defensive force against injustice and more of an offensive force by intimidating witnesses, distracting
the lawyers and distorting the unfolding drama in the courtroom. It gives rise to prejudiced opinion
and publicity and creates bias and sometimes confusion among the people. All these factors
definitely render the accuseds right to a fair and impartial trial illusory. Thus, until and unless the
media can secure the rights of the accused and eliminate all the adverse effects, specifically on the
general public, the television should remain outside the courtroom.

PUNO, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Constitutional Law; Criminal Due Process; Freedom of the Press; Right to Information; Mass Media;
Radio and Television; After the lapse of ten (10) years, I respectfully submit that the 1991 resolution
of the Supreme Court absolutely banning live radio and television coverage of criminal proceedings
should be re-examined to re-adjust the balance between a free press and a fair trial.After the
lapse of ten (10) years, I respectfully submit that the 1991 resolution of this Court absolutely banning
live radio and television coverage of criminal proceedings should be re-examined to re-adjust the
balance between a free press and a fair trial in the light of the continuing progress in
communications technology and to expand the right of access of the press and the public to
information without, however, impairing the right of an accused to due process.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It should be stressed that televising trial is still not without
its dangers to the constitutional right of an accused to fair trial but these probable dangers are not
insurmountable as other jurisdictions have demonstrated that they can be minimized if not avoided
by appropriate rules regulating televised trials.It should, however, be stressed that televising trial is
still not without its danger to the constitutional right of an accused to fair trial. Today, the greatest of
these remaining dangers is its adverse effect on the right of the accused to have access to evidence,
a right firmly anchored on the constitutional rights to compulsory process and due process.
Doubtless, the presence of television in the courtroom can affect a witness. The accuracy of his
testimony may be compromised. His physical demeanor, so important to trial judges to determine his
credibility, may become less natural under the klieglight. More importantly, the fear of too much
public exposure may cause reticent witnesses not to testify. Any of these circumstances will
prejudice the right of an accused to a fair trial just as it will frustrate the discovery of truth which is
the objective of judicial trial. But these probable dangers are not insurmountable as other
jurisdictions have demonstrated that they can be minimized if not avoided by appropriate rules
regulating televised trials. An example will be a rule which will not compel the televised testimony of
any witness for the accused upon his objection thereto. Such a rule will also meet the objection that
cameras in the courtroom cause psychological intimidation to witnesses.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The matter of whether or not the proceedings in a
criminal trial should be televised, totally or partially, should be addressed to the sound discretion of
the trial judge on a case to case basis.Live radio-TV coverage of a criminal trial cannot be
demanded as a matter of right but its absolute denial is also constitutionally suspect. It is therefore
respectfully submitted that the matter of whether or not the proceedings in a criminal trial should be
televised, totally or partially, should be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge on a case
to case basis. The exercise of this discretion will depend on the facts of each case and will involve
the delicate balancing of the constitutional right of the accused to fair trial and due process of law,
the press and the public right of access to trials in criminal cases, the right of the state to prosecute
crimes effectively and the duty of courts to ensure the fair and orderly administration of justice. To be
able to reasonably exercise his discretion, the trial judge has to hear a partys motion seeking to
televise the proceedings or any portion thereof to determine, among others, the standing of the
movant, the factual and legal bases of his asserted right and the opposition thereto. No witness,
especially a witness for the accused, upon his written objection, should be compelled to have his
testimony televised. In balancing the above rights, the judge should deny the motion, to televise trial
upon specific proof of prejudice and of reasonable likelihood that the right to fair trial of the accused
will be endangered.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It is the people who govern in a democracy and they can
only govern well if they are fully informeda people kept in the dark by the blindfold of ignorance will
only govern with mistakes.With due respect, the majority has struck the balance between free
press and fair trial much too much to the prejudice of the press and public right to information. It has
unduly sustained former President Estradas generalized grievance that cameras in the courtroom
will bring about the collapse of the rule of law and the hypothetical fear that they will psychologically
intimidate witnesses. It is all too obvious that the fear is a mere figment of imagination for former
President Estrada has not named any witness with a phobia against publicity. Indeed, the myth that
television intimidates witnesses has long been shattered to smithereens by empirical studies. For not
even requiring former President Estrada to show actual prejudice to his right to fair trial, the majority
has modified our ruling case law on the matter. The unjustified change to favor the former President
will cause undeserved damage to values we revere. It will, to a large degree, throttle the right of the
press to access to information and choke the flow of knowledge to the people. It is the people who
govern in a democracy and they can only govern well if they are fully informed. A people kept in the
dark by the blindfold of ignorance will only govern with mistakes. Let it be stressed that the right of
the people to know is strongest in times of turbulence for it is when the stakes to the State are high
that they cannot afford to err due to ignorance.

PANGANIBAN, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Constitutional Law; Due Process; Freedom of the Press; Right to Information; Mass Media; Radio
and Television; I respectfully submit that it is technologically possible to uphold the right of the
people to public information without violating the right of the accused to due process and without
impeding the orderly administration of justice.In justifying this proscription, the majority relies
mainly on an en banc Resolution dated October 22, 1991, in which this Court resolved to totally
prohibit live radio and television coverage of court hearings, mainly because of the prejudice it
poses (1) to defendants right to due process, (2) and to the fair and orderly administration of
justice; (3) while pointing out, on the other hand, that the right of the people to information may be
served and satisfied by less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means. That was in 1991, Today
in 2001, I respectfully submit that it is technologically possible to uphold the right of the people to
public information without violating the right of the accused to due process and without impeding the
orderly administration of justice. It is now feasible to satisfy the peoples right to information by less
distracting, degrading and prejudicial means.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Live coverage via a single fixed camera inside the
courtroom, through which the media can access and therefore broadcast the proceedings to the
entire nation and to the world, is the best technological and legal solution to the concerns raised by
the Court in 1991 and to the objections now aired by the accused and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.Therefore, after balancing the interests of the parties concernedthe constitutional
rights of the accused and the requirements of orderly procedures vis--vis the peoples fundamental
freedom of expression and right to information on matters of public concernI respectfully submit
that live coverage via a single fixed camera inside the courtroom, through which the media can
access and therefore broadcast the proceedings to the entire nation and to the world, is the best
technological and legal solution to the concerns raised by the Court in 1991 and to the objections
now aired by the accused (former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada) and the IBP. Re: Request
Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases Against the Former
President Joseph E. Estrada, 360 SCRA 248, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC June 29, 2001 This is a motion
for reconsideration of the decision denying petitioners' request for permission to televise and
broadcast live the trial of former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. The motion was filed
by the Secretary of Justice, as one of the petitioners, who argues that there is really no conflict
between the right of the people to public information and the freedom of the press, on the one hand,
and, on the other, the right of the accused to a fair trial; that if there is a clash between these rights, it
must be resolved in favor of the right of the people and the press because the people, as the
repository of sovereignty, are entitled to information; and that live media coverage is a safeguard
against attempts by any party to use the courts as instruments for the pursuit of selfish interests.

DECISION
VITUG, J.:

1. The travails of a deposed President continue.

2. The Sandiganbayan reels to start hearing the criminal charges against Mr. Joseph E.
Estrada.

3. Media seeks to cover the event via live television and live radio broadcast and endeavors
this Court to allow it that kind of access to the proceedings.

4. On 13 March 2001, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), an association

representing duly franchised and authorized television and radio networks throughout the
country, sent a letter[1]requesting this Court to allow live media coverage of the
anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President
Joseph E. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full
ransparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history." [2] The request
 was seconded by Mr. Cesar N. Sarino in his letter of 05 April 2001 to the Chief Justice
and, still later, by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo.

5. On 17 April 2001, the Honorable Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez formally filed the
instant petition,[3] submitting the following exegesis:

"3. The foregoing criminal cases involve the previous acts of the former highest
official of the land, members of his family, his cohorts and, therefore, it cannot be
over emphasized that the prosecution thereof, definitely involves a matter of public
concern and interest, or a matter over which the entire citizenry has the right to know,
be informed and made aware of.

" 4. There is no gainsaying that the constitutional right of the people to be informed on
matters of public concern, as in the instant cases, can best be recognized, served and
satisfied by allowing the live radio and television coverage of the concomitant court
proceedings.

"5. Moreover, the live radio and television coverage of the proceedings will also serve
the dual purpose of ensuring the desired transparency in the administration of justice
in order to disabuse the minds of the supporters of the past regime of any and all
unfounded notions, or ill-perceived attempts on the part of the present dispensation, to
'railroad' the instant criminal cases against the Former President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada."[4]

Public interest, the petition further averred, should be evident bearing in mind the right of the
public to vital information affecting the nation.

In effect, the petition seeks a re-examination of the 23rd October 1991 resolution of this
Court in a case for libel filed by then President Corazon C. Aquino. The resolution read:

"The records of the Constitutional Commission are bereft of discussion regarding the
subject of cameras in the courtroom. Similarly, Philippine courts have not had the
opportunity to rule on the question squarely.

While we take notice of the September 1990 report of the United States Judicial
Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom, still the current rule
obtaining in the Federal Courts of the United States prohibit the presence of television
cameras in criminal trials. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure forbids
the taking of photographs during the progress of judicial proceedings or radio
broadcasting of such proceedings from the courtroom. A trial of any kind or in any
court is a matter of serious importance to all concerned and should not be treated as a
means of entertainment. To so treat it deprives the court of the dignity which pertains
to it and departs from the orderly and serious quest for truth for which our judicial
proceedings are formulated.

"Courts do not discriminate against radio and television media by forbidding the
broadcasting or televising of a trial while permitting the newspaper reporter access to
the courtroom, since a television or news reporter has the same privilege, as the news
reporter is not permitted to bring his typewriter or printing press into the courtroom.

"In Estes vs. Texas, the United States Supreme Court held that television coverage of
judicial proceedings involves an inherent denial of the due process rights of a criminal
defendant. Voting 5-4, the Court through 'Mr. Justice Clark, identified four (4) areas of
potential prejudice which might arise from the impact of the cameras on the jury,
witnesses, the trial judge and the defendant. The decision in part pertinently stated:

"'Experience likewise has established the prejudicial effect of telecasting on

witnesses. Witnesses might be frightened, play to the camera, or become
nervous. They are subject to extraordinary out-of-court influences which might affect
their testimony. Also, telecasting not only increases the trial judge's responsibility to
avoid actual prejudice to the defendant, it may as well affect his own
performance. Judges are human beings also and are subject to the same psychologjcal
reactions as laymen. For the defendant, telecasting is a form of mental harassment and
subjects him to excessive public exposure and distracts him from the effective
presentation of his defense.

'The television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionally or inadvertently can

destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public.'

"Representatives of the press have no special standing to apply for a writ of mandate
to compel a court to permit them to attend a trial, since within the courtroom, a
reporter's constitutional rights are no greater than those of any other member of the
public. Massive intrusion of representatives of the news media into the trial itself can
so alter or destroy the constitutionally necessary judicial atmosphere and decorum that
the requirements of impartiality imposed by due process of law are denied the
defendant and a defendant in a criminal proceeding should not be forced to run a
gauntlet of reporters and photographers each time he enters or leaves the courtroom.

"Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendant's right to due process as well as to
the fair and orderly administration of justice, and considering further that the freedom
of the press and the right of the people to information may be served and satisfied by
less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means, live radio and television coverage of
court proceedings shall not be allowed. Video footages of court hearings for news
purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of the courtroom, the judicial officers,
the parties and their counsel taken prior to the commencement of official
proceedings. No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during the trial proper.

"Accordingly, in order to protect the parties right to due process, to prevent the
distraction of the participants in the proceedings and in the last analysis, to avoid
miscarriage of justice, the Court resolved to PROHIBIT live radio and television
coverage of court proceedings. Video footages of court hearings for news purposes
shall be limited and restricted as above indicated."

Admittedly, the press is a mighty catalyst in awakening public consciousness, and it has
become an important instrument in the quest for truth.[5] Recent history exemplifies media's
invigorating presence, and its contribution to society is quite impressive. The Court, just recently,
has taken judicial notice of the enormous effect of media in stirring public sentience during the
impeachment trial, a partly judicial and partly political exercise, indeed the most-watched
program in the boob-tubes during those times, that would soon culminate in EDSA II.

The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involve the weighing out of the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information, on the one
hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional
power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial.[6]

When these rights race against one another, jurisprudence[7] tells us that the right of the
accused must be preferred to win.

With the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an
accused, it behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict solely on
the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment, a verdict that would come only after the
presentation of credible evidence testified to by unbiased witnesses unswayed by any kind of
pressure, whether open or subtle, in proceedings that are devoid of histrionics that might detract
from its basic aim to ferret veritable facts free from improper influence, [8] and decreed by a judge
with an unprejudiced mind, unbridled by running emotions or passions.

Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved
in a trial that is not lifted above its individual settings nor made an object of public's
attention[9] and where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or
influence[10] but only by evidence and argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and
calm ambiance is demanded.
 Witnesses and judges may very well be men and women of fortitude, able to thrive in hardy
climate, with every reason to presume firmness of mind and resolute endurance, but it must also
be conceded that "television can work profound changes in the behavior of the people it focuses
on."[11] Even while it may be difficult to quantify the influence, or pressure that media can bring
to bear on them directly and through the shaping of public opinion, it is a fact, nonetheless, that,
indeed, it does so in so many ways and in varying degrees. The conscious or unconscious effect
that such coverage may have on the testimony of witnesses and the decision of judges cannot be
evaluated but, it can likewise be said, it is not at all unlikely for a vote of guilt or innocence to
yield to it.[12] It might be farcical to build around them an impregnable armor against the influence
of the most powerful media of public opinion.[13]

To say that actual prejudice should first be present would leave to near nirvana the subtle
threats to justice that a disturbance of the mind so indispensable to the calm and deliberate
dispensation of justice can create.[14] The effect of television may escape the ordinary means of
proof, but it is not far-fetched for it to gradually erode our basal conception of a trial such as we
know it now.[15]

An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him, more than anyone
else, where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. A public trial aims to ensure that
he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not
compromised in secrete conclaves of long ago. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized
trial; it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in the
available seats, conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. In the
constitutional sense, a courtroom should have enough facilities for a reasonable number of the
public to observe the proceedings, not too small as to render the openness negligible and not too
large as to distract the trial participants from their proper functions, who shall then be totally free
to report what they have observed during the proceedings.[16]

The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to
public information. It also approves of media's exalted power to provide the most accurate and
comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public and in acquainting the public
with the judicial process in action; nevertheless, within the courthouse, the overriding
consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to due process [17] which must never be
allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions. Justice Clark thusly pronounced,
"while a maximum freedom must be allowed the press in carrying out the important function of
informing the public in a democratic society, its exercise must necessarily be subject to the
maintenance of absolute fairness in the judicial process."[18]

This Court, in the instance[19] already mentioned, citing Estes vs. Texas,[20] the United States
Supreme Court holding the television coverage of judicial proceedings as an inherent denial of
due process rights of an accused, also identified the following as being likely prejudices:
"1. The potential impact of television x x x is perhaps of the greatest significance. x x
x. From the moment the trial judge announces that a case will be televised it becomes
a cause celebre. The whole community, x x x becomes interested in all the morbid
details surrounding it. The approaching trial immediately assumes an important status
in the public press and the accused is highly publicized along with the offense with
which he is charged. Every juror carries with him into the jury box these solemn facts
and thus increases the chance of prejudice that is present in every criminal case. x x x

"2. The quality of the testimony in criminal trials will often be impaired. The impact
upon a witness of the knowledge that he is being viewed by a vast audience is simply
incalculable. Some may be demoralized and frightened, some cocky and given to
overstatement; memories may falter, as with anyone speaking publicly, and accuracy
of statement may be severely undermined. x x x. Indeed, the mere fact that the trial is
to be televised might render witnesses reluctant to appear and thereby impede the trial
as well as the discovery of the truth.

"3. A major aspect of the problem is the additional responsibilities the presence of
television places on the trial judge. His job is to make certain that the accused receives
a fair trial. This most difficult task requires his undivided attention. x x x

4. Finally, we cannot ignore the impact of courtroom television on the defendant. Its
presence is a form of mental - if not physical-harassment, resembling a police line-up
or the third degree. The inevitable close-up of his gestures and expressions during the
ordeal of his trial might well transgress his personal sensibilities, his dignity, and his
ability to concentrate on the proceedings before him - sometimes the difference
between life and death - dispassionately, freely and without the distraction of wide
public surveillance. A defendant on trial for a specific crime is entitled to his day in
court, not in a stadium, or a city or nationwide arena. The heightened public clamor
resulting from radio and television coverage will inevitably result in prejudice."

In his concurring opinion in Estes, Mr. Justice Harlan opined that live television and radio
coverage could have mischievous potentialities for intruding upon the detached atmosphere that
should always surround the judicial process.[21]

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, in its Resolution of 16 April 2001, expressed its own
concern on the live television and radio coverage of the criminal trials of Mr. Estrada; to
paraphrase: Live television and radio coverage can negate the rule on exclusion of witnesses
during the hearings intended to assure a fair trial; at stake in the criminal trial is not only the life
and liberty of the accused but the very credibility of the Philippine criminal justice system, and
live television and radio coverage of the trial could allow the "hooting throng" to arrogate unto
themselves the task of judging the guilt of the accused, such that the verdict of the court will be
acceptable only if popular; and live television and radio coverage of the trial will not subserve
the ends of justice but will only pander to the desire for publicity of a few grandstanding lawyers.

It may not be unlikely, if the minority position were to be adopted, to see protracted delays
in the prosecution of cases before trial courts brought about by petitions seeking a declaration of
mistrial on account of undue publicity and assailing a court a quo's action either allowing or
disallowing live media coverage of the court proceedings because of supposed abuse of
discretion on the part of the judge.

En passant, the minority would view the ponencia as having modified the case law on the
matter. Just to the contrary, the Court effectively reiterated its standing resolution of 23 October
1991. Until 1991, the Court had yet to establish the case law on the matter, and when it did in its
23 October resolution, it confirmed, in disallowing live television and radio coverage of court
rd

proceedings, that "the records of the Constitutional Commission (were) bereft of discussion
regarding the subject of cameras in the courtroom" and that "Philippine courts (had) not
(theretofore) had the opportunity to rule on the question squarely."

But were the cases decided by the U.S. courts and cited in the minority opinion really in
point?

In Nebraska Press Association vs. Stewart,[22] the Nebraska State trial judge issued an order
restraining news media from publishing accounts of confession or admissions made by the
accused or facts strongly implicating him. The order was struck down. In Richmond Newspaper,
Inc., vs. Virginia,[23] the trial judge closed the courtroom to the public and all participants except
witnesses when they testify. The judge was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that
criminal trials were historically open. In Globe Newspaper vs. Superior Court ,[24] the US Supreme
Court voided a Massachusetts law that required trial judges to exclude the press and the public
from the courtroom during the testimony of a minor victim of certain sexual offenses.

Justice Stewart, in Chandler vs. Florida,[25] where two police officers charged with burglary
sought to overturn their conviction before the US Supreme Court upon the ground that the
television coverage had infringed their right to fair trial, explained that "the constitutional
violation perceived by the Estes Court did not stem from the physical disruption that might one
day disappear with technological advances in the television equipment but inhered, rather, in the
hypothesis that the mere presence of cameras and recording devices might have an effect on the
trial participants prejudicial to the accused."[26]

Parenthetically, the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts do not allow live
television and radio coverage of their proceedings.

The sad reality is that the criminal cases presently involved are of great dimensions so
involving as they do a former President of the Republic. It is undeniable that these cases have
twice become the nation's focal points in the two conflicting phenomena of EDSA II and EDSA
III where the magnitude of the events has left a still divided nation. Must these events be invited
anew and risk the relative stability that has thus far been achieved? The transcendental events in
our midst do not allow us to, turn a blind eye to yet another possible extraordinary case of mass
action being allowed to now creep into even the business of the courts in the dispensation of
justice under a rule of law. At the very least, a change in the standing rule of the court contained
in its resolution of 23 October 1991 may not appear to be propitious.

Unlike other government offices, courts do not express the popular will of the people in any
sense which, instead, are tasked to only adjudicate justiciable controversies on the basis of what
alone is submitted before them.[27] A trial is not a free trade of ideas. Nor is a competing market of
thoughts the known test truth in a courtroom.[28]

The Court is not all that unmindful of recent technological and scientific advances but to
chance forthwith the life or liberty of any person in a hasty to bid to use and apply them, even
before ample safety nets are provided and the concerns heretofore expressed are aptly addressed,
is a price too high to pay.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.