EN BANC

[A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC. October 23, 2012.]

IN 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. October 23, 2012.]

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
SETTING UP OF VIDEOCAM AND MONITOR OUTSIDE THE COURT
FOR THE 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. October 23, 2012.]

RE: LETTER OF PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III FOR THE "LIVE

MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE TRIAL".

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated OCTOBER 23,
2012 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC (In 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 (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 setting up of videocam
and monitor outside the court for the 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 (Re: Letter of President
Benigno S. Aquino III for the "Live Media Coverage of the Maguindanao
Massacre Trial") . — On June 14, 2011 , this Court, through Associate Justice Conchita
Carpio-Morales, promulgated a Resolution 1 (the June 14, 2011 Resolution) partially
granting pro hac vice the request for live broadcast by television and radio of the trial court
proceedings of the "Maguindanao massacre" cases, 2 subject to speci c guidelines fully
set forth in said Resolution.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Subsequently, counsels for petitioners Editha Mirandilla Tiamzon (Tiamzon) and
Glenna Legarta (Legarta) led a Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated June 29,
2011 alleging that "the provisos (1) prohibiting broadcasts on the trial without any voice-
overs, except brief annotations of scenes depicted in the proceeding that may be
necessary to explain them at the start or at the end of the scene; (2) prohibiting the repeat
airing of the audio-visual recording except upon nality of judgment or of brief footage and
still images derived from or cartographic sketches of scenes based on the recording, and
only for news purposes; and (3) requiring continuous broadcast without any commercial
break or any other gap except when the day's proceedings are adjourned, or during the
period of recess called by the trial court and during portions of the proceedings wherein
the public is ordered excluded, all substitute the Court's editorial judgment for media's
own and therefore constitute prior restraint that infringes the constitutional right to free
expression." 3 HECaTD

Petitioners Tiamzon and Legarta take issue on provisos (f), (g), and (h) of the
enumerated guidelines in the June 14, 2011 Resolution and allege that these must be
struck down for being unconstitutional, as they constitute prior restraint on free
expression because they dictate what media can and cannot report about the
"Maguindanao massacre" trial. Petitioners Tiamzon and Legarta maintain that the
restriction and penalty sought to be imposed on media produce a "chilling effect" on all
forms of expression about the court proceedings. Petitioners Tiamzon and Legarta also
add that proviso (h) constitutes an undue taking of property rights as it "forces media
out ts to commit practically [a] big chunk of their resources to the coverage of the trial
without any commercial breaks except under allowable situations . . . ." 4
Accused Andal Ampatuan, Jr. (Ampatuan) also led a Motion for
Reconsideration dated June 27, 2011 , alleging that the June 14, 2011 Resolution
"deprives him of his rights to due process, equal protection, presumption of innocence,
and to be shielded from degrading psychological punishment." 5
Ampatuan contends that this Court should accord more vigilance in safeguarding
his rights as an accused because the immense publicity and adverse public opinion which
live media coverage can produce would affect everyone, including the judge, witnesses for
the accused, and the families and relatives of all concerned parties. Ampatuan states that
this Court should not bend to the clamour of pressure groups, such as media journalists,
but should push for the basic judicial and democratic principles of fair play and balanced
judicial process. Ampatuan asserts that "live media coverage of the trial is cruel and
degrading punishment for the accused even before he is convicted by final judgment." 6
In a Resolution dated July 5, 2011, this Court required Ampatuan to comment on the
Partial Motion for Reconsideration by petitioners Tiamzon and Legarta, and also required
the petitioners to comment on Ampatuan's Motion for Reconsideration.
Ampatuan led an Opposition dated August 1, 2011 , alleging that "petitioners
want to secure conviction by maximizing whatever opportunity mass communications
media will extend to them." 7 Ampatuan asserts that there is "no content-based restriction,
only responsible journalism" 8 with the guidelines provided by this Court when it mandated
that no voice-overs be made during the live telecast of the hearings. Ampatuan also
contends that there was no undue taking of private property as the coverage is voluntary
and only those who are serious enough may avail of the opportunity to report on the
hearings. Ampatuan maintains that "media coverage must not be allowed as it infringes on
his constitutional rights to fair trial, presumption of innocence and to an impartial tribunal .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 . . ." 9
Petitioners National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), et al.
led a Motion for Leave of Court to File Comment (to Tiamzon and Legarta's Partial
Motion for Reconsideration) dated August 15, 2011 , alleging that while they were not
directed by this Court to comment on their co-petitioners' partial motion for
reconsideration, they deemed it necessary to le a comment in order to clarify some
matters that may affect its resolution. IDTSaC

In their Consolidated Comment (to Tiamzon and Legarta's Partial Motion for
Reconsideration and Ampatuan's Motion for Reconsideration) dated August 15, 2011 ,
petitioners NUJP, et al. allege that Ampatuan's motion for reconsideration has failed to
present new and convincing arguments that would merit reversal of this Court's ruling in
the June 14, 2011 Resolution.
Petitioners NUJP, et al. declare that they opted not to le a motion for
reconsideration since they recognize the good faith underlying the gestures of this Court,
speci cally in providing in paragraph (k) of the guidelines that called for the creation of a
special committee. This, according to petitioners NUJP, et al. shows that this Court is
"giving room for exibility and experimentation and is aware that the guidelines cannot
possibly anticipate all the problems and concerns that live television coverage of the
Ampatuan trial will encounter." 1 0 Moreover, petitioners NUJP, et al. aver that this Court,
through the Court Administrator, has already addressed some of the concerns of the
petitioner-media practitioners through a dialogue on June 22, 2011.
The O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG) led a Comment dated August 24,
2011 , for President Benigno S. Aquino III , alleging that the arguments raised in
Ampatuan's motion for reconsideration are a mere rehash of the issues which have already
been judiciously passed upon by this Court. The OSG maintains that "the coverage by live
media of hearings neither constitutes a barbarous act nor in icts upon the accused
inhuman physical harm or torture that is shocking to the conscience. The fact that more
than the usual number of court attendees could witness the criminal trial will not convert
the attendance thereto into a degrading and cruel punishment." 1 1 The OSG avers that
Ampatuan failed to adduce any new matter to modify the Resolution of this Court. DcITaC

Upon reconsideration, and after weighing once more the rights guaranteed by the
Constitution that are involved in this case, this Court partially grants reconsideration of the
June 14, 2011 Resolution. For reasons to be discussed below, this Court is now
disallowing the live media broadcast of the trial of the "Maguindanao massacre" cases but
is still allowing the lming of the proceedings for (1) the real-time transmission to
specified viewing areas, and (2) documentation.
The Court in the June 14, 2011 Resolution recognized "the impossibility of
accommodating even the parties to the cases — the private complainants/families of the
victims and other witnesses — inside the courtroom," as there were 57 victims and 197
accused that were involved, and under strict guidelines, made use of modern technology
"to provide the only solution to break the inherent limitations of the courtroom, to satisfy
the imperative of a transparent, open and public trial." 1 2
Upon review of the matter, however, the Court has sought a way to provide a public
trial as required by the Constitution 1 3 and the Rules, 1 4 which is a right granted to the
accused, without inviting media frenzy that affect the due process rights of the accused in
this high-profile case.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 While this Court recognizes the freedom of the press and the right to public
information, which, by the way, are rights that belong to non-direct parties to the case, the
rights of the direct parties should not be forgotten. In a clash among these competing
interests and in terms of the values the Constitution recognizes, jurisprudence makes it
clear that the balance should always be weighed in favor of the accused. 1 5
The constitutional rights speci c to the accused under Section 14, Article III of the
Constitution such as the right to due process of law, 1 6 to be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, 1 7 and to an impartial and public trial 1 8 and the requirement of the
highest quantum of proof 1 9 to justify deprivation of his liberty (or even of his life) provide
more than ample justi cation to take a second look at the view that a camera that
broadcasts the proceedings live on television has no place in a criminal trial because of its
prejudicial effects on the rights of accused individuals. DTcASE

This Court, in Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C.
Aquino's Libel Case , 2 0 found that the live coverage of judicial proceedings involve an
inherent denial of due process, which we quote:
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 in uences 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
psychological 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. 2 1

In this case that has achieved notoriety and sensational status, a greater degree of
care is required to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused. To be in the best
position to weigh the con icting testimonies of the witnesses, the judge must not be
affected by any outside force or in uence. Like any human being, however, a judge is not
immune from the pervasive effects of media. 2 2
So must the witnesses be shielded from the pressure of being aware that their
testimony is broadcasted live over television and radio, to be scrutinized and judged by the
court of public opinion. A witness' behavior and self-consciousness before the camera in a
high-pro le case such as this case might compromise the reliability of the fact- nding
process, which in turn could skew the judge's assessment of his or her credibility,
necessarily affecting the resolution of the case. cEaCTS

In a constitutional sense, public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. 2 3 The
right to a public trial belongs to the accused. The requirement of a public trial is satis ed
by the opportunity of the members of the public and the press to attend the trial and to
report what they have observed. 2 4 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 justi cation for
allowing the live broadcast of the trial. The tendency of a high pro le case like the subject
case to generate undue publicity with its concomitant undesirable effects weighs heavily
against broadcasting the trial. Moreover, 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 afforded after the fact but must be protected at the first instance.
To address the physical impossibility of accommodating the large number of
interested parties inside the courtroom in Camp Bagong Diwa, it is not necessary to allow
the press to broadcast the proceedings here and abroad, but the Court may allow the
opening of closed-circuit viewing areas outside the courtroom where those who may be so
minded can come and watch the proceedings. 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. This is similar to the procedure adopted by this Court in allowing members
of the public to watch its oral arguments at a viewing area outside of the Session Hall
where a large monitor projects the images and sounds from inside the Session Hall in real
time.
Aside from providing a viewing area outside the courtroom in Camp Bagong Diwa,
closed-circuit viewing areas can also be opened in selected trial courts in Maguindanao,
Koronadal, South Cotabato, and General Santos City where most of the relatives of the
accused and the victims reside, enabling them to watch the trial without having to come to
Camp Bagong Diwa. These viewing areas will, at all times, be under the control of the trial
court judges involved, subject to this Court's supervision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered , the Court resolves to:
1. DENY the Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated June 29,
2011 of petitioners Editha Mirandilla Tiamzon and Glenna
Legarta ;
2. PARTIALLY GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration dated June
27, 2011 led by accused Andal Ampatuan, Jr. and to MODIFY
this Court's Resolution dated June 14, 2011 , by disallowing the live
media broadcast of the trial in Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-162148-72,
Q-09-162216-31, Q-10-162652-66, and Q-10-163766, subject to the
following guidelines on audio-visual recording and streaming of the
video coverage:
a. An audio-visual recording of the Maguindanao massacre cases
may be made both for documentary purposes and for
transmittal to speci ed closed-circuit viewing areas: (i) outside
the courtroom, within the Camp Bagong Diwa's premises; and
(ii) selected trial courts in Maguindanao, Koronadal, South
Cotabato, and General Santos City where the relatives of the
accused and the victims reside. Said trial courts shall be
identi ed by the O ce of the Court Administrator. These
viewing areas shall be under the control of the trial court judges
involved, subject to this Court's supervision.
aIcDCH

b. 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 c. A single xed 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 Supreme Court.
d. The transmittal of the audio-visual recording from inside the
courtroom to the closed-circuit viewing areas 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. CHATEa

e. The Public Information O ce and the O ce of the Court

Administrator shall coordinate and assist the trial courts
involved on the physical set-up of the camera and equipment.
f. The original audio-recording shall be deposited in the National
Museum and the Records Management and Archives O ce for
preservation and exhibition in accordance with law.
g. The audio-visual recording of the proceedings and its
transmittal shall be made under the control of the trial court
which may issue supplementary directives, as the exigency
requires, subject to this Court's supervision.
h. In all cases, the witnesses should be excluded from watching
the proceedings, whether inside the courtroom or in the
designated viewing areas. The Presiding Judge shall issue the
appropriate orders to insure compliance with this directive and
for the imposition of appropriate sanctions for its violation."
Carpio, J., on o cial leave. Del Castillo, J., on leave. Perez, J., on
official leave. (adv98)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL

Clerk of Court

Footnotes
1.In Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases Against
Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, A.M. Nos. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11-6-SC and 10-11-7-
SC, June 14, 2011, 652 SCRA 1.
2.Trial involving 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., being heard 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 3.Rollo (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC), p. 467; Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated June 29, 2011.

4.Id. at 473.
5.Id. at 489; Motion for Reconsideration dated June 27, 2011.
6.Id. at 501.
7.Id. at 538; Opposition dated August 1, 2011.
8.Id. at 540.

9.Id. at 545.
10.Id. at 589; Consolidated Comment dated August 15, 2011.
11.Id. at 621-622; Comment dated August 24, 2011.
12.In Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases Against
Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, supra note 1 at 13-14.
13.Article III, Section 4.
14.Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, effective December 1, 2000.

Rule 115, SECTION 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be entitled to the following rights:

xxx xxx xxx

(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial . (Emphasis added.)
15.Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases
Against the Former President Joseph E. Estrada, Perez v. Estrada , 412 Phil. 686, 704-705
(2001).

16.CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14 (1).

17.Id. at Sec. 14 (2).
18.Id.
19.Proof beyond reasonable doubt. See RULES OF COURT, Rule 134, Section 2.

20.En Banc Resolution dated October 22, 1991.

21.Id., citing Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965).
22.See Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion in Biraogo v. Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010, G.R. Nos. 192935 and 193036, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78,
335 and Supplemental Opinion of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion in Lejano v. People ,
G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, December 14, 2010, 638 SCRA 104, 197.
23.Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases
Against the Former President Joseph E. Estrada, Perez v. Estrada, supra note 15 at 715-
716.
24.Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 610 (U.S. 1978).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com