Perez v.

Estrada 360 SCRA 248 (2001) 

Doctrine:  According to Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of
his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of including the
court.”

Facts: Honorable Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez filed an instant 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.
The court resolved to prohibit live radio and television coverages of court proceedings. Video footages of court
hearings for news purposes shall be limited and restricted. Hence, the current petition.

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.

I: Whether or not the court should 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.

R: No. The Court has considered the arguments of the parties on this important issue and, after due deliberation,
finds no reason to alter or in any way modify its decision prohibiting live or real time broadcast by radio or
television of the trial of the former president. By a vote of nine (9) to six (6) of its member, the Court denies the
motion for reconsideration of the Secretary of Justice.

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. A trial
is not a free trade of ideas. Nor is a competing market of thoughts the known test of truth in a courtroom.

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.

In lieu of live TV and radio coverage of the trial, the Court, by the vote of eight (8) Justices, has resolved to order
the audio-visual recording of the trial for documentary purposes.  Seven (7) Justices vote against the audio-visual
recording of the trial. Considering the significance of the trial before the Sandiganbayan of former President
Estrada and the importance of preserving the records thereof, the Court believes that there should be an audio-
visual recording of the proceedings.  The recordings will not be for live or real time broadcast but for documentary
purposes.  Only later will they be available for public showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated its
decision in every case to which the recording pertains.  The master film shall be deposited in the National Museum
and the Records Management and Archives Office for historical preservation and exhibition pursuant to law.