In Re Ampatuan

2/8/2015
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652
CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
____________________
A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC.June 14, 2011.*
RE: PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION

COVERAGE OF THE MULTIPLE MURDER CASES
AGAINST
MAGUINDANAO
GOVERNOR
ZALDY
AMPATUAN, ET AL.
A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC.June 14, 2011.*
RE: PETITION FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE

PRESENT COURT HANDLING THE TRIAL OF THE
MASSACRE OF 57 PERSONS, INCLUDING 32
JOURNALISTS, IN AMPATUAN, MAGUINDANAO INTO
A SPECIAL COURT HANDLING THIS CASE ALONE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING GENUINE
SPEEDY TRIAL and FOR THE
_______________
*EN BANC.
1
2
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014b69b6c8b530d05443000a0082004500cc/p/AMN413/?username=Guest
1/24
2/8/2015
Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the

Multiple Murder Cases Against Maguindanao Governor
Zaldy Ampatuan, et al.
SETTING UP OF VIDEOCAM AND MONITOR JUST

OUTSIDE THE COURT FOR JOURNALISTS TO COVER
AND FOR THE PEOPLE TO WITNESS THE TRIAL OF
THE DECADE TO MAKE IT TRULY PUBLIC AND
IMPARTIAL
AS
COMMANDED
BY
THE
CONSTITUTION.
A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC.June 14, 2011.*
RE: LETTER OF PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

FOR THE LIVE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE
MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE TRIAL.
Courts; Rights of the Accused; The indication of serious risks
posed by live media coverage to the accuseds right to due process
has left a blow to the exercise of press freedom and the right to
public information.The indication of serious risks posed by
live media coverage to the accuseds right to due process, left
unexplained and unexplored in the era obtaining in Aquino and
Estrada, has left a blow to the exercise of press freedom and the
right to public information. The rationale for an outright total
prohibition was shrouded, as it is now, inside the
comfortable cocoon of a feared speculation which no
scientific study in the Philippine setting confirms, and
which fear, if any, may be dealt with by safeguards and
safety nets under existing rules and exacting regulations.
Same; Same; In this day and age, it is about time to craft a
win-win situation that shall not compromise rights in the criminal
administration of justice, sacrifice press freedom and allied rights,
and interfere with the integrity, dignity and solemnity of judicial
proceedings.In this day and age, it is about time to craft a win-
2/24
2/8/2015
win situation that shall not compromise rights in the criminal

administration of justice, sacrifice press freedom and allied rights,
and interfere with the integrity, dignity and solemnity of judicial
proceedings. Compliance with regulations, not curtailment of a
right, provides a workable solution to the concerns raised in these
administrative matters, while, at the same time, maintaining the
same underlying principles upheld in the two previous cases.
3
VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011
Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple

Murder Cases Against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan,
et al.
Same; Same; Technology tends to provide the only solution to

break the inherent limitations of the courtroom, to satisfy the
imperative of a transparent, open and public trial.The
impossibility of holding such judicial proceedings in a courtroom
that will accommodate all the interested parties, whether private
complainants or accused, is unfortunate enough. What more if the
right itself commands that a reasonable number of the general
public be allowed to witness the proceeding as it takes place
inside the courtroom. Technology tends to provide the only
solution to break the inherent limitations of the courtroom, to
satisfy the imperative of a transparent, open and public trial.
Same; Same; Law and technology can work to the advantage
and furtherance of the various rights herein involved, within the
contours of defined guidelines.Indeed, the Court cannot gloss
over what advances technology has to offer in distilling the
abstract discussion of key constitutional precepts into the
workable context. Technology per se has always been neutral. It is
3/24
2/8/2015
the use and regulation thereof that need fine-tuning. Law and
technology can work to the advantage and furtherance of the
various rights herein involved, within the contours of defined
guidelines.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS in the Supreme Court.

Request for Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Trial of
the Maguindanao Massacre Cases.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Romeo T. Capulong, Rachel F. Pastores, Francis
Anthony Principe, Mary Kathryn G. Sison, Rolando Rico C.
Olalia, Amylyn B. Sato, Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte,
Philip D. Sawali and Rom-Voltaire C. Quizon for
petitioners in AM No. 10-11-5-SC.
Michael J. Mella, Ronaldo E. Renta and Cirilo P.
Sabarre for petitioners in AM No. 10-11-6-SC.
Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun and Gregorio Y. Narvasa for
Andal Ampatuan, Jr.
4

RESOLUTION
CARPIO-MORALES,J.:
On November 23, 2009, 57 people including 32
journalists and media practitioners were killed while on
their way to Shariff Aguak in Maguindanao. Touted as the
worst election-related violence and the most brutal killing
of journalists in recent history, the tragic incident which
came to be known as the Maguindanao Massacre
4/24
2/8/2015
spawned charges for 57 counts of murder and an additional

charge of rebellion against 197 accused, docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-162148-72, Q-09-162216-31, Q-
10-162652-66, and Q-10-163766, commonly entitled People
v. Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., et al. Following the transfer
of venue and the reraffling of the cases, the cases are being
tried by Presiding Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes of Branch 221
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City inside
Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig City.
Almost a year later or on November 19, 2010, the
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP),
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, GMA Network, Inc.,
relatives of the victims,1 individual journalists2 from
various media entities, and members of the academe3 filed
a petition before this
_______________
1 Ma. Reynafe Momay-Castillo, Editha Mirandilla-Tiamzon, and
Glenna Legarta.
2Horacio Severino, Glenda Gloria, Mariquit Almario Gonzales, Arlene
Burgos, Abraham Balabad, Jr., Joy Gruta, Ma. Salvacion Varona, Isagani
De Castro, Danilo Lucas, Cecilia Victoria Orena Drilon, Cecilia
Lardizabal, Vergel Santos, Romula Marinas, Noel Angel Alamar, Joseph
Alwyn Alburo, Rowena Paraan, Ma. Cristina Rodriguez, Luisita Cruz
Valdes, David Jude Sta. Ana, and Joan Bondoc.
3 Roland Tolentino, Danilo Arao, Elena Pernia, Elizabeth Enriquez,
Daphne Tatiana Canlas, Rosalina Yokomori, Marinela Aseron, Melba
Estonilo, Lourdes Portus, Josefina Santos, and Yumina Francisco.
5
VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011

5/24
2/8/2015

Court praying that live television and radio coverage of the

trial in these criminal cases be allowed, recording devices
(e.g., still cameras, tape recorders) be permitted inside the
courtroom to assist the working journalists, and reasonable
guidelines be formulated to govern the broadcast coverage
and the use of devices.4 The Court docketed the petition as
A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC.
In a related move, the National Press Club of the
Philippines5
(NPC)
and
Alyansa
ng
Filipinong
6
Mamamahayag (AFIMA) filed on November 22, 2010 a
petition praying that the Court constitute Branch 221 of
RTC-Quezon City as a special court to focus only on the
Maguindanao Massacre trial to relieve it of all other
pending cases and assigned duties, and allow the
installation inside the courtroom of a sufficient number of
video cameras that shall beam the audio and video signals
to the television monitors outside the court.7 The Court
docketed the petition as A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC.
President Benigno S. Aquino III, by letter of November
22, 20108 addressed to Chief Justice Renato Corona, came
out in support of those who have petitioned [this Court] to
permit television and radio broadcast of the trial. The
President expressed earnest hope that [this Court] will,
within the many considerations that enter into such a
historic deliberation, attend to this petition with the
dispatch, dispassion and humaneness, such a petition
merits.9 The Court docketed the matter as A.M. No. 10-
11-7-SC.
_______________
6/24
2/8/2015
4Vide Rollo (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC), p. 95.

5Represented by its president, Jerry Yap.
6Represented by its president, Benny Antiporda.
7Vide Rollo (A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC), p. 19.
8Rollo (A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC), pp. 1-2.
9Id., at p. 2.
6

By separate Resolutions of November 23, 2010,10 the

Court consolidated A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC with A.M. No. 10-
11-5-SC. The Court shall treat in a separate Resolution
A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC.
Meanwhile, various groups11 also sent to the Chief
Justice their respective resolutions and statements bearing
on these matters.
The principal accused in the cases, Andal Ampatuan, Jr.
(Ampatuan), filed a Consolidated Comment of December 6,
2010 in A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC and A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC. The
President, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), and NUJP, et al. filed their respective Reply of
January 18,
_______________
10 Rollo (A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC), p. 3; Rollo (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC), p.
186.
11 The Sangguniang Panlungsod of General Santos City endorsed
Resolution No. 484 of November 22, 2010 which resolved to strongly urge
7/24
2/8/2015
the Supreme Court of the Philippines to allow a live media coverage for
public viewing and information on the court proceedings/trial of the
multiple murder case filed against the suspects of the Maguindanao
massacre. The Court noted it by Resolution of December 14, 2010. Rollo,
(A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC), pp. 429-431, 434.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Cebu City Chapter passed
Resolution No. 24 (December 7, 2010) which resolved, inter alia,
respectfully ask the Supreme Court to issue a circular or order to allow
Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes to concentrate on the case of the Maguindanao
massacre, unencumbered by other cases until final decision in this case is
rendered. The Court noted it by Resolution of January 18, 2011. Rollo,
(A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC), pp. 90-91, 97.
The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City also carried
Resolution Nos. 10342-2010 and 10343-2010, both dated November 23,
2010, which resolved to support the clamor for speedy trial and that the
hearing of the Maguindanao massacre be made public with a request to
consider the appeal to air live the hearings thereof. The Court noted it by
Resolution of December February 1, 2011. Rollo, (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC),
pp. 671-674, 676.
7
VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011

2011 and January 20, 2011. Ampatuan also filed a

Rejoinder of March 9, 2011.
On Broadcasting the Trial of the
Maguindanao Massacre Cases
Petitioners seek the lifting of the absolute ban on live
television and radio coverage of court proceedings. They
principally urge the Court to revisit the 1991 ruling in Re:
8/24
2/8/2015
Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President

Corazon C. Aquinos Libel Case12 and the 2001 ruling in Re:
Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases Against the Former
President Joseph E. Estrada13 which rulings, they contend,
violate the doctrine that proposed restrictions on
constitutional rights are to be narrowly construed and
outright prohibition cannot stand when regulation is a
viable alternative.
Petitioners state that the trial of the Maguindanao
Massacre cases has attracted intense media coverage due
to the gruesomeness of the crime, prominence of the
accused, and the number of media personnel killed. They
inform that reporters are being frisked and searched for
cameras, recorders, and cellular devices upon entry, and
that under strict orders of the trial court against live
broadcast coverage, the number of media practitioners
allowed inside the courtroom has been limited to one
reporter for each media institution.
The record shows that NUJP Vice-Chairperson Jose
Jaime Espina, by January 12, 2010 letter14 to Judge Solis-
Reyes, requested a dialogue to discuss concerns over media
coverage
_______________
12En Banc Resolution of October 22, 1991.
13 A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 248; Re: Request
Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder
Cases Against the Former President Joseph E. Estrada, 412 Phil. 686; 360
SCRA 248 (2001).
14Rollo, (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC), p. 121.
8
9/24
2/8/2015

of the proceedings of the Maguindanao Massacre cases.

Judge Solis-Reyes replied, however, that matters
concerning media coverage should be brought to the Courts
attention through appropriate motion.15 Hence, the
present petitions which assert the exercise of the freedom
of the press, right to information, right to a fair and public
trial, right to assembly and to petition the government for
redress of grievances, right of free access to courts, and
freedom of association, subject to regulations to be issued
by the Court.
The Court partially GRANTS pro hac vice
petitioners prayer for a live broadcast of the trial
court proceedings, subject to the guidelines which
shall be enumerated shortly.
Putts Law16 states that technology is dominated by two
types of people: those who understand what they do not
manage, and those who manage what they do not
understand. Indeed, members of this Court cannot strip
their judicial robe and don the experts gown, so to speak,
in a pretense to foresee and fathom all serious prejudices or
risks from the use of technology inside the courtroom.
A decade after Estrada and a score after Aquino, the
Court is once again faced with the same task of striking
that delicate balance between seemingly competing yet
certainly complementary rights.
The indication of serious risks posed by live media
coverage to the accuseds right to due process, left
unexplained and unexplored in the era obtaining in Aquino
and Estrada, has left a blow to the exercise of press
10/24
2/8/2015
freedom and the right to public information.

_______________
15Id., at p. 122.
16 Based on the 1981 book entitled Putts Law and the Successful
Technocrat which is attributed to the pseudonym Archibald Putt.
9
VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011

The rationale for an outright total prohibition was

shrouded, as it is now, inside the comfortable cocoon
of a feared speculation which no scientific study in
the Philippine setting confirms, and which fear, if
any, may be dealt with by safeguards and safety nets
under existing rules and exacting regulations.
In this day and age, it is about time to craft a win-win
situation that shall not compromise rights in the criminal
administration of justice, sacrifice press freedom and allied
rights, and interfere with the integrity, dignity and
solemnity of judicial proceedings. Compliance with
regulations, not curtailment of a right, provides a workable
solution to the concerns raised in these administrative
matters, while, at the same time, maintaining the same
underlying principles upheld in the two previous cases.
The basic principle upheld in Aquino is firm[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
11/24
2/8/2015
means of entertainment[s t]o 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. The observation that
[m]assive intrusion of representatives of the news media
into the trial itself can so alter and destroy the
constitutionally necessary atmosphere and decorum
stands.
The Court concluded in Aquino:
Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendants 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 pro-
10
10

et al.
ceedings. No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during

the trial proper.
Accordingly, in order to protect the parties right to due pro-
cess, to prevent the distraction of the participants in the
proceedings and in the last analysis, to avoid miscarriage of
justice, the Court resolved to PROHlBIT live radio and television
coverage of court proceedings. Video footage of court hearings for
12/24
2/8/2015
news purposes shall be limited and restricted as above

indicated.17
The Court had another unique opportunity in Estrada to

revisit the question of live radio and television coverage of
court proceedings in a criminal case. It held that [t]he
propriety of granting or denying the instant petition
involve[s] 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. The Court disposed:
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 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.18
In resolving the motion for reconsideration, the Court in

Estrada, by Resolution of September 13, 2001, provided a
glimmer of hope when it ordered the audio-visual recording
of the trial for documentary purposes, under the following
conditions:
_______________
17Supra note 20 at pp. 6-7.
18Perez v. Estrada, 412 Phil. 686, 711; 360 SCRA 248, 265 (2001).
11
13/24
2/8/2015
VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011
11

x x x (a) the trial shall be recorded in its entirety, excepting

such portions thereof as the Sandiganbayan may determine
should not be held public under Rule 119, 21 of the Rules of
Criminal
Procedure;
(b)
cameras
shall
be
installed
inconspicuously inside the courtroom and the movement of TV
crews shall be regulated consistent with the dignity and solemnity
of the proceedings; (c) the audio-visual recordings shall be made
for documentary purposes only and shall be made without
comment except such annotations of scenes depicted therein as
may be necessary to explain them; (d) the live broadcast of the
recordings before the Sandiganbayan shall have rendered its
decision in all the cases against the former President shall be
prohibited under pain of contempt of court and other sanctions in
case of violations of the prohibition; (e) to ensure that the
conditions are observed, the audio-visual recording of the
proceedings shall be made under the supervision and control of
the Sandiganbayan or its Division concerned and shall be made
pursuant to rules promulgated by it; and (f) simultaneously with
the release of the audio-visual recordings for public broadcast, the
original thereof shall be deposited in the National Museum and
the Records Management and Archives Office for preservation
and exhibition in accordance with law.19
Petitioners note that the 1965 case of Estes v. Texas20

which Aquino and Estrada heavily cited, was borne out of
the dynamics of a jury system, where the considerations for
the possible infringement of the impartiality of a jury,
14/24
2/8/2015
whose members are not necessarily schooled in the law, are

different from that of a judge who is versed with the rules
of evidence. To petitioners, Estes also does not represent
the most contemporary position of the United States in the
wake of latest jurisprudence21 and statistical figures
revealing that as of 2007 all 50 states, except the District of
Columbia, allow television coverage with varying degrees of
openness.
_______________
19A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, September 13, 2001, 365 SCRA 62, 70.
20381 U.S. 532 (1965).
21Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981).
12
12

Other jurisdictions welcome the idea of media

coverage. Almost all the proceedings of United Kingdoms
Supreme Court are filmed, and sometimes broadcast.22 The
International Criminal Court broadcasts its proceedings
via video streaming in the internet.23
On the media coverages influence on judges, counsels
and witnesses, petitioners point out that Aquino and
Estrada, like Estes, lack empirical evidence to support the
sustained conclusion. They point out errors of
generalization where the conclusion has been mostly
supported by studies on American attitudes, as there has
been no authoritative study on the particular matter
15/24
2/8/2015
dealing with Filipinos.

Respecting the possible influence of media coverage on
the impartiality of trial court judges, petitioners correctly
explain that prejudicial publicity insofar as it undermines
the right to a fair trial must pass the totality of
circumstances test, applied in People v. Teehankee, Jr.24
and Estrada v. Desierto,25 that the right of an accused to a
fair trial is not incompatible to a free press, that pervasive
publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused
to a fair trial, and that there must be allegation and proof
of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free
decision. Mere fear of possible undue influence is not
tantamount to actual prejudice resulting in the deprivation
of the right to a fair trial.
Moreover, an aggrieved party has ample legal remedies.
He may challenge the validity of an adverse judgment
arising from a proceeding that transgressed a
constitutional right. As pointed out by petitioners, an
aggrieved party may early on
_______________
22 <http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/about/did-you-know.html> (Last
accessed: May 25, 2011).
23 Vide <http://livestream.xs4all.nl/icc1.asx> (Last accessed: June 7,
2011).
24G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995, 249 SCRA 54.
25G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001, 353 SCRA 452.
13
VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011
13

16/24
2/8/2015
move for a change of venue, for continuance until the

prejudice from publicity is abated, for disqualification of
the judge, and for closure of portions of the trial when
necessary. The trial court may likewise exercise its power
of contempt and issue gag orders.
One apparent circumstance that sets the Maguindanao
Massacre cases apart from the earlier cases is the
impossibility of accommodating even the parties to the
casesthe private complainants/families of the victims and
other witnessesinside the courtroom. On public trial,
Estrada basically discusses:
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.26
(underscoring supplied)
Even before considering what is a reasonable number of

the public who may observe the proceedings, the
peculiarity of the subject criminal cases is that the
proceedings already necessarily entail the presence of
17/24
2/8/2015
hundreds of families. It cannot be gainsaid that the

families of the 57 victims and of the 197 accused have as
much interest, beyond mere curiosity, to attend or monitor
the proceedings as those of the im-
_______________
26Perez v. Estrada, supra note 18 at pp. 706-707; 360 SCRA 248, 260-
261.
14
14

pleaded parties or trial participants. It bears noting at this

juncture that the prosecution and the defense have listed
more than 200 witnesses each.
The impossibility of holding such judicial proceedings in
a courtroom that will accommodate all the interested
parties, whether private complainants or accused, is
unfortunate enough. What more if the right itself
commands that a reasonable number of the general public
be allowed to witness the proceeding as it takes place
inside the courtroom. Technology tends to provide the only
solution to break the inherent limitations of the courtroom,
to satisfy the imperative of a transparent, open and public
trial.
In so allowing pro hac vice the live broadcasting by radio
and television of the Maguindanao Massacre cases, the
Court lays down the following guidelines toward
addressing the concerns mentioned in Aquino and Estrada:
18/24
2/8/2015
(a)An audio-visual recording of the Maguindanao massacre

cases may be made both for documentary purposes and for
transmittal to live radio and television broadcasting.
(b)Media entities must file with the trial court a letter of
application, manifesting that they intend to broadcast the audio-
visual recording of the proceedings and that they have the
necessary technological equipment and technical plan to carry out
the same, with an undertaking that they will faithfully comply
with the guidelines and regulations and cover the entire
remaining proceedings until promulgation of judgment.
No selective or partial coverage shall be allowed. No media
entity shall be allowed to broadcast the proceedings without an
application duly approved by the trial court.
(c)A single fixed compact camera shall be installed
inconspicuously inside the courtroom to provide a single wide-
angle full-view of the sala of the trial court. No panning and
zooming shall be allowed to avoid unduly highlighting or
downplaying incidents in the proceedings. The camera and the
necessary equipment shall be operated and controlled only by a
duly designated official or employee of the Su-
15
VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011
15

et al.
preme Court. The camera equipment should not produce or beam

any distracting sound or light rays. Signal lights or signs showing
the equipment is operating should not be visible. A limited
number of microphones and the least installation of wiring, if not
wireless technology, must be unobtrusively located in places
indicated by the trial court.
19/24
2/8/2015
The Public Information Office and the Office of the Court

Administrator shall coordinate and assist the trial court on the
physical set-up of the camera and equipment.
(d)The transmittal of the audio-visual recording from inside the
courtroom to the media entities shall be conducted in such a way
that the least physical disturbance shall be ensured in keeping
with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings and the
exclusivity of the access to the media entities.
The hardware for establishing an interconnection or link with
the camera equipment monitoring the proceedings shall be for the
account of the media entities, which should employ technology
that can (i) avoid the cumbersome snaking cables inside the
courtroom, (ii) minimize the unnecessary ingress or egress of
technicians, and (iii) preclude undue commotion in case of
technical glitches.
If the premises outside the courtroom lack space for the set-up
of the media entities facilities, the media entities shall access the
audio-visual recording either via wireless technology accessible
even from outside the court premises or from one common web
broadcasting platform from which streaming can be accessed or
derived to feed the images and sounds.
At all times, exclusive access by the media entities to the real-
time audio-visual recording should be protected or encrypted.
(e)The broadcasting of the proceedings for a particular day must
be continuous and in its entirety, excepting such portions thereof
where Sec. 21 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court27 applies, and
where
_______________
27Exclusion of the public.The judge may, motu proprio, exclude the public
from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is offensive to
decency or public morals. He may also,
16
20/24
2/8/2015
16

et al.
the trial court excludes, upon motion, prospective witnesses from

the courtroom, in instances where, inter alia, there are unresolved
identification issues or there are issues which involve the security
of the witnesses and the integrity of their testimony (e.g., the
dovetailing of corroborative testimonies is material, minority of
the witness).
The trial court may, with the consent of the parties, order only the
pixelization of the image of the witness or mute the audio output,
or both.
(f)To provide a faithful and complete broadcast of the
proceedings, no commercial break or any other gap shall be
allowed until the days proceedings are adjourned, except during
the period of recess called by the trial court and during portions of
the proceedings wherein the public is ordered excluded.
(g)To avoid overriding or superimposing the audio output from
the on-going proceedings, the proceedings shall be broadcast
without any voice-overs, except brief annotations of scenes
depicted therein as may be necessary to explain them at the start
or at the end of the scene. Any commentary shall observe the sub
judice rule and be subject to the contempt power of the court;
(h)No repeat airing of the audio-visual recording shall be
allowed until after the finality of judgment, except brief footages
and still images derived from or cartographic sketches of scenes
based on the recording, only for news purposes, which shall
likewise observe the sub judice rule and be subject to the
contempt power of the court;
(i)The original audio-recording shall be deposited in the
National Museum and the Records Management and Archives
Office for preservation and exhibition in accordance with law.
21/24
2/8/2015
(j)The audio-visual recording of the proceedings shall be made

under the supervision and control of the trial court which may
issue supplementary directives, as the exigency requires,
including the suspension or revocation of the grant of application
by the media entities.
_______________
on motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial except court
personnel and the counsel of the parties.
17
VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011
17

et al.
(k)The Court shall create a special committee which shall

forthwith
study,
design
and
recommend
appropriate
arrangements, implementing regulations, and administrative
matters referred to it by the Court concerning the live broadcast
of the proceedings pro hac vice, in accordance with the above-
outlined guidelines. The Special Committee shall also report and
recommend on the feasibility, availability and affordability of the
latest technology that would meet the herein requirements. It
may conduct consultations with resource persons and experts in
the field of information and communication technology.
(l)All other present directives in the conduct of the proceedings
of the trial court (i.e., prohibition on recording devices such as still
cameras, tape recorders; and allowable number of media
practitioners inside the courtroom) shall be observed in addition
to these guidelines.
22/24
2/8/2015
Indeed, the Court cannot gloss over what advances

technology has to offer in distilling the abstract discussion
of key constitutional precepts into the workable context.
Technology per se has always been neutral. It is the use
and regulation thereof that need fine-tuning. Law and
technology can work to the advantage and furtherance of
the various rights herein involved, within the contours of
defined guidelines.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing disquisition, the
Court PARTIALLY GRANTS PRO HAC VICE the request
for live broadcast by television and radio of the trial court
proceedings of the Maguindanao Massacre cases, subject to
the guidelines herein outlined.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta,
Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez,
Mendoza, and Sereno, JJ., concur.
Corona (C.J.), On Official Leave.
Brion, J., On Sick Leave.
Request partially granted.

18
18

23/24
2/8/2015
Note.In determining whether or not a particular

information is of public concern there is no rigid test which
can be applied. Public concern like public interest is a
term that eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a
broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to
know, either because these directly affect their lives, or
simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest
of an ordinary citizen. (Legaspi vs. Civil Service
Commission, 150 SCRA 530 [1987])
o0o
Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
24/24

In Re Ampatuan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re Ampatuan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re Ampatuan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/8/2015

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

RE: PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION

RE: PETITION FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the

SETTING UP OF VIDEOCAM AND MONITOR JUST

RE: LETTER OF PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

win situation that shall not compromise rights in the criminal

VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011

Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple

Same; Same; Technology tends to provide the only solution to

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS in the Supreme Court.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

spawned charges for 57 counts of murder and an additional

VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011

Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

Multiple Murder Cases Against Maguindanao Governor

Court praying that live television and radio coverage of the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

4Vide Rollo (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC), p. 95.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

By separate Resolutions of November 23, 2010,10 the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011

Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the

2011 and January 20, 2011. Ampatuan also filed a

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of the proceedings of the Maguindanao Massacre cases.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

freedom and the right to public information.

VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011

Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the

The rationale for an outright total prohibition was

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

means of entertainment[s t]o so treat it deprives the court

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple

ceedings. No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

news purposes shall be limited and restricted as above

The Court had another unique opportunity in Estrada to

In resolving the motion for reconsideration, the Court in

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

VOL. 652, JUNE 14, 2011

Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the

x x x (a) the trial shall be recorded in its entirety, excepting

Petitioners note that the 1965 case of Estes v. Texas20

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 652

whose members are not necessarily schooled in the law, are

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the