Corazon Aquino vs Luis Beltran

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

Corazon Aquino vs Luis Beltran
En Banc Resolution
October 22, 1991

Facts:

February 11, 1991 was no ordinary day for the Regional Trial Court of Manila, particularly branch 35 thereof. Calendared for hearing that day was Criminal Case No. 88-61915, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Luis Beltran," and scheduled to testify for the prosecution was no less than Her Excellency, President Corazon Aquino.

Upon prior permission sought and obtained by Presiding Judge Ramon Makasiar, the hearing was held at the session hall of the Manila City Council to accommodate the large audience. The proceedings were telecast live by several television stations, Judge Makasiar having granted on February 7, 1991 the request of Ms. Ida F. Vargas of the Presidential Broadcast Staff to televise the proceedings in said case.

The day after the trial, Sectoral Representative Arturo A. Borjal wrote Justice Marcelo B. Fernan lamenting the live coverage by several television stations of the court proceedings. In his letter, Borjal stated that, “in the United States and other democratic countries, live TV and radio coverage is strictly prohibited under their Rules of Court. For such practice tends to undermine the integrity of and decorum in judicial proceedings.”

On February 14, 1991, the Supreme Court En Banc required Judge Makasiar to comment on the letter of Congressman Borjal. Complying therewith, Judge Makasiar stated at the outset that "he had never asked, invited or requested any media man whether print, broadcast, or telecast, to cover the Court's proceedings." When a representative from Malacañang sought permission to televise the proceedings, he granted the request on the condition "that only the usual video footages would be taken of the proceedings for news purposes." It turned out that the entire proceedings was telecast live to the public.

Nonetheless, Judge Makasiar remarked that he "was not aware of any law, rule of court, or Supreme Court decision, guideline or declared policy, vis-à-vis, the live TV and radio coverage of court trials. However, sections 4, 7 and 14 (2) of the Bill of Rights (Article III) of the 1987 Constitution guarantee the freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press; the right of the people to information on matters of public concern; and the right of the accused to public trial, respectively. The implied suggestion of Congressman Borjal to ban live TV and radio coverage of court trials may be offensive to these constitutional freedoms and rights."

He further observed that "the justice system in the Philippines cannot be compared with that of the United States which adopts the jury system. Members of the jury are laymen, some of whom with low education, and therefore easily influenced by emotion, sentiments, comments of other people, and other human frailties. In the Philippines, justice is administered by judges who are learned in the law of evidence, and are constitutionally mandated to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which their pronouncements and judgment are based."

Issue:

Whether live coverage by several television stations be allowed in court proceedings?

Held:

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 questions squarely.

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.

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 also alter or destroy the constitutionally necessary judicial atmosphere and decorum that the requirements 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.