Patrick Ramos 10-1758

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno Digest

Facts:

On March 13, 2001, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, thru its President,

Mr. Ruperto S. Nicdao, Jr., wrote to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. to be allowed the

privilege of covering the anticipated trials in the Sandiganbayan of the plunder cases against

former President Joseph E. Estrada. In addition, on April 5, 2001, Mr. Cesar N. Sarino wrote a

similar letter to the Chief Justice requesting the Supreme Court to allow live television coverage

of the trial of former President Estrada. Also, On April 16, 2001, Senator Renato Cayetano also

prayed for the live coverage, by media of the said trial subject to the conditions that the Supreme

Court may impose. The Court also sought the opinion of the accused Estrada on the matter.

Estrada opposed the petition by arguing that there is a need to preserve the rule of law and

warned that radio and television as media can be easily manipulated for propaganda purposes.

The Courts en banc resolution of October 22, 1991 absolutely prohibits live TV and

radio coverage of court hearings. They based their decision on a United States of America Case

named Estes vs Texas. In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States 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. These areas are as follows: Witnesses might be

frightened, The trial judges performance will be compromised, it is a form of mental harassment

for the defendant in the case and finally, the television camera is a powerful tool which can

destroy the accused and his case in the eyes of the public.
 After ten years, Justice Puno gave this opinion with the hopes of lifting the ban imposed

by the October 22, 1991 resolution of the Supreme Court

Issue: Whether or not the Ban on live TV and radio coverage must be lifted

Decision/Opinion: YES.

Ratio of Justice Puno:

Justice Puno gave four reasons why the Ban must be lifted. The first reason is that the

Estes case, which the Court used as basis, has been modified by subsequent cases. Chief Justice

Burger from the United States noted that technological progress had allowed media to minimize

the disruptive effects of cameras in the courtroom. In the case of Nebraska Press Association vs

Stewart, the Supreme Court ruled the proper balance between the right of the media to access to

the courtroom and the accused right to a fair trial. They noted that the judge must examine three

things which are: nature and extent of pre-trial news coverage, whether other measures would be

likely to mitigate the effects of unrestrained pretrial publicity, and how effectively a restraining

order would operate to prevent the threatened danger. In this case, the Court held that pretrial

publicity, even pervasive, adverse publicity does not inevitably lead to an unfair trial. It affirmed

the right of the press to publish information concerning court proceedings even as it held that

trial judges have the major responsibility to protect the accuseds right to a fair trial.

The second reason Justice Puno gave is that objection as to ill effect on dignity and

decorum has long receded. The Estes case decided to ban the media access due to the physical

disturbances the cables, microphones and other media equipment caused. However, TV cameras

are now less intrusive and disruptive with the quantum leap in communications technology in the

last twenty (20) years. Maryland, for example, has clear rules setting down the technical
requirements for television and still cameras and photographers, types of microphones to be

used, noise limitations, placement in the courtroom and restrictions on movement of personnel

and equipment.

The third reason given by Justice Puno is that a majority of states in the United States

now allows radio-TV coverage of criminal trials. A total of Forty-Seven states now allow radio-

TV coverage of their trials. He also gave the principal arguments favoring televised trial. These

arguments are as follows: firstly, an open trial has a great value because it assures people who

cannot attend the trial that fairness is being followed, secondly, it is a truism that an educated,

enlightened and vigilant citizenry makes democracy work because through the coverage, the

citizens will get to know and appreciate how their system and their government work, thirdly, a

study conducted by Lassiter shows that cameras in the courtroom does not have any negative

effects on judicial proceedings and lastly, the cameras in the courtroom will serve as a guide to

expose to miscarriage of justice.

The last reason given by Justice Puno is that the allowance of disallowance of radio-TV

coverage of a trial must lay in the hands of the discretion of the trial judge. 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. Additionally, it shall be the

duty of the trial judge to provide and impose the necessary rules and regulations to assure that

the televised trial will not detract from the solemnity, decorum and dignity of the court.

The rules and regulations imposed by the judge if he/she would allow radio-TV coverage

would be the following: the equipment used by the media personnel must not be intrusive, the

media personnel should be neatly and appropriately dressed as well as act accordingly while the
court is in session, no film may be used for adverstising or commercial purposes, only a single-

fixed camera may be installed in the courtroom and lastly, the media personnel should give a

balance between the sides of the prosecution and the defendant in the case. Along with the power

to allow radio-TV coverage of the trial, the judge also has the power to restrain and put an end to

the coverage should there be any violation done.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, I respectfully submit that the absolute ban on televising criminal trials be

lifted and the petitions of the Secretary of Justice, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Filipinas,

Mr. Cesar Sarino, Atty. Ricardo Romulo, et al., and Senator Renato Cayetano, to televise the trial

of the plunder cases against former President Joseph E. Estrada as well as the oppositions of

former President Estrada and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines thereto, be remanded to the

Sandiganbayan for proper disposition in accordance with the suggested guidelines set forth

above