Category: The News Media

Rules of Court, The News Media

Fear Factor

ottoman42.jpg

 

“The Sound of Light” by Ottoman42 on Flickr

 

A colleague of mine once said , “Not everything starts with the written or spoken word. There are also images.”

On the other hand, a psychology professor of mine in the GE courses once said, “No human thought is possible without words.”

So…are all thoughts and ideas in our heads created only in verbal language, whether articulated or not?

The Sandiganbayan in the promulgation of People vs. Estrada , plunder , will allow only words and sounds to come out of the courtroom , not images.

The Court will set up a speaker outside to let the audio out (by the way, when you broadcast audio from a speaker box, the sound is muffled). The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas filed a petition to ask the Supreme Court to revisit that policy of not allowing live media coverage of the promulgation of People vs. Estrada, plunder.

I don’t know whether the Supreme Court has any scheduled en banc between now and Wednesday morning or whether they would call for one on a day’s notice; it is therefore not clear whether that petition would be acted upon early enough. Maybe not.

But what does it matter? Wouldn’t the public get the substance of it when they hear the decision as it is read live? (or maybe only the dispositive portion of it.). That is the substance of the event, isn’t it?

Yes, if you think that all thoughts and ideas are derived only from verbal language.

 

stiickler.jpg
“Light and Sound” by stickler on Flickr

 

Does everything begin and end with the word?

A hand clasped in prayer, looks that could kill, the memories it evokes, blood rushing with the beating of drums and feet, a teardrop. And the revolt it breaks open. Many times, the narrative of an event is conveyed “more perfectly” by images rather than words.

And so, what does it matter when images of an event are not allowed but only words of it? Your constitutional right of access to information on matters of public concern is not violated, is it? It’s just being regulated. You’re allowed sound only, just without motion and light. What does it matter?

Maybe it matters the world sometimes, when it is the sight of a senator-judge dancing a jig while people cry against injustice, that changes the world; maybe it matters the world sometimes when it the sight of a body sprawled on the tarmac that move people to change.

 

The judge pensively looking up from his bench and the bewildered look of an American soldier while members of his U.S. Secret Service close in on him and members of the Makati police take him away. The world turned that day.

 

 

 

Maybe sometimes, it matters the world to see the event unfold, and not just hear the crackling voice of the the clerk of court unwind.

It is a matter of curiosity therefore that: for Wednesday’s promulgation, the government does not want any images to come out of the courtroom, and the Estrada camp is “not inclined anymore” (quoting their statement) to ask for a live media coverage. Curious isn’t it?

Fear of crowds, fear of numbers, fear of the unknown, fear of the evidence, fear of the possible, fear of the impossible: all these prevail, so that the live media coverage of Wednesday’s promulgation is, as of this writing, not allowed.

We’re gonna miss this one, aren’t we?

“It (or ,the policy of not allowing live media coverage,) will, to a large degree, throttle the right of the press to access to information and choke the flow of knowledge to the people. It is the people who govern in a democracy and they can only govern if they are fully informed. A people kept in the dark by the blindfold of ignorance will only govern with mistakes. luna.jpg

 

(“The Spoliarium” by Juan Luna, National Museum, right-clicked from http://www.ops.gov)

“Let it be stressed that the right of the people to know is strongest in times of turbulence for it is when the stakes to the State are high that they cannot afford to err due to ignorance….All these because the majority (the majority of justices in “In Re Live Media Coverage of People vs. Estrada, Petitioner DOJ Secretary Hernando Perez, KBP, et al vs. Estrada and IBP”) has persisted in the primitive belief that the courtroom is limited to the pad and pencil reporters. The majority will bring about the new Rip Van Winkles in this age of electronic media – We, I dissent.” – then Associate Justice Reynato Puno, dissenting in said case cited, June 29, 2001).

 


Criminal law, media law, Rules of Court, The News Media

plunder and justice

sanzio.jpg

“Cherubini” by Raphael right-clicked from www.ac.cc.md.us

Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Teresita de Castro said during the congressional budget hearing today that the Sandiganbayan was considering passing rules to regulate the conduct of surveys of high-profile cases because such constitute “prejudicial publicity” (Nadia Trinidad’s report at ANC).Shesaid that they have not come up with specific rules, but they were just studying the matter. She also said that the promulgation would be this September 13.

The exchange in the congressional hearing came in the heels of the recent media blitz of the Erap PR people, which, judging from the dates of the “events” covered in the succeeding news stories, is probably part of a media plan (campaign strat, in advertising lingo). A media plan that they are able to implement because editors allow it.

You might run into free-speech issues if the rules that would be passed are not based on some established guidelines or policies.

Since Justice de Castro used the phrase “prejudicial publicity” i’ll try to use it here the way it’s used in jurisprudence (because she didn’t say “impeding the administration of justice”, which is the contempt provision in the Rules of Court.) Prof. Perfecto Fernandez in his book “Mass Media Law” compiled pertinent jurisprudence on the matter, and referredto them as“four principal types of prejudicial publicity which interfere with the right of the accused to a fair trial”;they’re in four categories: “1) sensationalized reporting; (2)vigilantism by the press; (3) excessive publicity; and (4) prejudicial material.” He said rights of the accused.

But what if the “prejudicial publicity” were favorable to the accused and fostered sympathy for the accused? Would those policies still be applicable? Such that, you can use them for your proposed rules? Since those concepts are based on the right of the accused to a fair trial, would you also apply them if the publicity were favorable to the accused, therefore, not prejudicial to him/ her, therefore, not in interference with the accused’s right to a fair trial?

Does the State enjoy the same kind of rights that the accused enjoy?

The State, as represented by the entire prosecutorial machinery of government, cannot be said to have the same rights as the accused. (of course, you hear of complainants in criminal cases cry: “but what about the rights of victims?”)

“Victims”, or the complainants in criminal cases, well,not them but their interests, and the interests of the entire community, are, when a prima facie case is established, represented by the entire legal armada of the State, which includes investigative agencies, the police, the prosecutors — all those stand behind and in front of you when you are “victimized” and there is prima facie evidence for a criminal case. The accusedon the other hand is just represented by his/her legal team.But there’s this small phrase, this teeny-weeny thing that keeps any accused from being unjustly punished. The small phrase “presumption of innocence”.That saves your life.(that’s how it’s supposed to work anyway). When there is a prima facie case, the entire legal machinery is brought to bear upon an accused, but that small phrase saves the accused.

(When “victims” complain: “but what about the rights of victims”, they feel aggrieved; but maybe because in that instance, the system might have already been despoiled by either neglect from the executive branch or because its members are not professional or because it had been corrupted. It’s not because you need to insert an amendment in the Bill of Rights for rights of “victims”; it’s not because there’s something wrong with the rights of the accused as guaranteed in the Constitution or in the Rules of Court; it’s not because the Constitution is skewed in favor of criminals; but it’s because your investigators, prosecutors, judges, did not do their job… But that’s just my opinion.)

So, does the State enjoy the same kind of rights? Can the Courts come in with rules that say: the accused or his friends or sympathizers,pending trial and decision,cannot sponsor certain surveys, hire PR people, interact with reporters and editors, etc.? Can you do that using categories and policies meant to protect the rights of the accused?

Gee, I don’t know… I’m just checking out the cases on it. (i’m not sure you can legislate media ethics or pass judicial circulars on it; you just do your darndest to remind friends.)

(Atsaka, September 13, Thursday , Triskaidekaphobia. Didn’t the clerk of court notice it; maybe they wanted to set it in the most tailend midweek; tailend and midweek don’t go together; but you know what i mean; the last midweek day.).