http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110124-316222/SC-pressed-on-live-coverage-of-Ampatuan-trial
SC pressed on live coverage of Ampatuan trial
MANILA, Philippines—A group of journalists is pressing the Supreme Court to grant its demand for live coverage of the ongoing trial of the Maguindanao massacre, saying this is not a special privilege for media but a recognition of the people’s right to know.
In a reply to defense lawyers opposing the petition, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) argued that open coverage was not barred by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.
“To reiterate what was emphasized repeatedly in the petition, prohibition cannot be allowed when regulation is a reasonable alternative,” read the NUJP petition to the high tribunal filed on Friday by the Public Interest Law Center.
“The cognate connection arises because … the true beneficiary of a free press is not media institutions, but the people themselves,” it added.
The NUJP pointed out that no less than the United Nations had recognized the people’s right to information by authorizing the public viewing of the trial of war crime offenses.
“Ironically, the United Nations, the repository of the conventions relied upon by the defense, broadcasts trials in its war crimes tribunals. Viewing it is just a mouse-click away,” the petitioners said.
In opposing the journalists’ petition, lawyers of the Ampatuan clan blamed for the Nov. 23, 2009, massacre of 57 people in Maguindanao claimed that live reporting of court proceedings was prohibited by international law to protect the right to life of the accused.
The Ampatuan clan said the due process clause of the Constitution also banned cameras inside the courtrooms to avoid trial by publicity.
Grossly unfair to accused
But the petitioners countered that “it requires a great leap of the imagination” to conclude that the televised coverage would endanger the lives of the accused.
“Such is grossly unfair to the petitioners,” the NUJP said in the 33-page pleading. “The argument illustrates the pitfalls of trafficking in the abstract, of cobbling together broad statements in order to come up gasping with a conclusion.”
“The due process clause is neither for nor against live televised coverage of criminal trials; it is therefore up to those who favor or object to it to make out their respective cases,” the NUJP said.
The group also assailed the defense lawyers for resorting to “misrepresentation” and “falsity” in blocking the petition.
To illustrate its point, the NUJP clarified that it did not mention in its petition that studies on the effect of live media coverage showed that it could affect the judges, lawyers and witnesses as claimed by the Ampatuan lawyers.
The journalists challenged the defense panel to prove that they had included in their petition researches in the United States which purportedly tended to support the defense counsels’ position.
“The defense’s fabrication is the unethical practice that is expressly sanctioned by Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,” the NUJP said.
“Instead of meeting these challenges squarely,” the petitioners said, “the (defense panel) relies on purposeful misrepresentations, hypocrisy and clever manipulation of data to defeat a legitimate claim.”
“That is not how justice is supposed to work at the highest court of the land,” they argued.
While they were correct in saying that the right to information was not absolute, the NUJP said the lawyers of the accused had failed to prove that their clients were exempted from the rules set by existing jurisprudence.
This purportedly included issues pertaining to morals, public order, national security, foreign relations, trade secrets and privacy.
“It is one thing to cite authorities to establish a rule and quite another to claim an exception when no effort is made to establish that one rightfully falls within the exception,” the NUJP said.
“(I)t becomes incumbent upon them to show that they fall within the recognized exceptions of confidentiality… They have not. That is because they are not entitled to the exceptions,” the petitioners continued.
The group also downplayed the defense counsels’ insinuations that the petition would give “unbridled license” for media to show the hearings to the public.
Opportunity
Once approved, the live coverage of the trial would be in accordance to the rules set by the Supreme Court and that it would respect the rights of the Ampatuans, the petitioners said.
According to them, the petition was also an opportunity for the high tribunal to discuss “ramifications” of its rulings on the cases of the live coverage petitions on the plunder charge of deposed President Joseph Estrada and the libel case filed by the late President Corazon Aquino.
The high court’s arguments in these two cases were extensively raised by the Ampatuan lawyers.
“The Aquino and Estrada (cases have) so many ramifications far beyond the concerns raised therein … to foster the impartial administration of justice. The decisions ravage other constitutional rights in ways unforeseen,” the petitioners said.
No comments:
Post a Comment