|
----------------------------
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
Manila
En Banc
RE: REQUEST
FOR RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE
PLUNDER CASES AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH ESTRADA
Administrative
Matter No. 01-4-03-SC
REQUEST FOR
REVIEW BY PLUNDERWATCH, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN AND OTHERS
x- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
REQUEST FOR
REVIEW OF MAJORITY OPINION
(Respectfully submitted by Plunderwatch and other concerned organizations)
…………………………………………………………………….
Plunderwatch,
a network composed of representatives of RCS Sisters, Maryknoll
Sisters, CB Sisters, Iglesia Filipina Independiente, United Church
of Christ of the Philippines, Task Force Urban Conscientization,
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Concerned Artists
of the Philippines, Women Lead, Mother Earth, U.P. Student Council,
U.P. Law Student Government, Gabriela, Youth Movement for Justice
and Meaningful Change, Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas,
Confederation for the Organization of Government Employees, Health
Alliance for Democracy, Migrante International, Pambansang Lakas
ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya sa Pilipinas, and Kompil, pro se, hereby
respectfully request for a review of the majority opinion in Administrative
Matter No. 01-4-03-SC, and in support thereof hereby respectfully
states that:
At the heart
of this case or administrative matter is an imperfect human institution
called the Court that strives to render perfect justice in an
imperfect world. It is this "imperfectness" which the majority
opinion highlights and emphasizes to deny the Petition to allow
tri-media coverage of the Estrada criminal cases. The gist of
the majority opinion is as follows:
Television
coverage would violate the right to a fair and impartial trial
because judges/ justices, witnesses, and lawyers would behave
in an unnatural manner beneath the glare of klieglights ; and
that justices would be swayed by public opinion instead of being
convinced solely by the evidence and arguments in court.
It is not
television that causes the imperfection of the judicial system
and it is not folly that makes us human.
From a multitude
of 50 million people, from which 37,000 lawyers have endured the
rigors of law school and the bar exams, judges and justices are
recommended by a Judicial and Bar Council and chosen by the Chief
Executive for their integrity, probity, and competence. While
this selection process is certainly not flawless, the objective
is to select wise men and women who would be able to preside over
and impartially arbitrate disputes in society. But more than this
and more important, the decisions rendered by judges and justices
are published for all to see, to be subjected to public scrutiny.
Their decisions are subject to the crucible of analysis and word-for-word
critique in law schools, in public forums, in newspapers, and
yes, television. While judges and justices commit errors, they
are always reversible as long as known. This is what a democratic
state is all about.
Erroneous
decisions are not supposed to be the norm but the exception to
the norm. To premise any Decision on human frailty is the height
of human folly, and this is what the majority opinion does: It
focuses on judicial frailty rather than what is expected of justices
and judges.
Second, the
notion that the behavior of justices/ judges and participants
in a trial would be affected by television cameras is not borne
by evidence. On the contrary, empirical evidence from scientific
studies show that cameras in the courtroom have no adverse impact
on judicial proceedings. A well-known study published in the Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, 928, 1940, Vol. 86, No. 3 (1996)
in the United States made the following findings:
"Several states
have conducted studies on the potential impact of electronic media
coverage on courtroom proceedings, particularly focusing on the
effect cameras have upon courtroom decorum and upon witnesses,
jurors, attorneys, and judges. In all of these states, the courts
permitted electronic media coverage in both civil and criminal
proceedings, although a majority of coverage was criminal cases.
The results from the state studies were unanimous: the impact
of electronic media coverage of courtroom proceedings, whether
civil or criminal, shows few side effects.
In September,
1990, the Judicial Conference of the United States implemented
what was to be a three-year pilot program that permitted electronic
media coverage in civil proceedings in six federal district courts
and two circuit courts. The Federal Evaluation indicated, among
other things, that:
~ overall
attitudes of judges toward electronic media were neutral and became
more favorable after experience under the experimental program.
~ generally,
judges and attorneys who had experience with electronic media
coverage reported observing small or no effects of camera presence
on proceedings, participants, courtroom decorum, or the administration
of justice.
~ overall,
judges and court personnel reported that the media were very cooperative
and complied with program guidelines and other restrictions that
were imposed.
Indeed, the
Federal Judicial Center's "Summary of Findings" concluded that
no negative impact resulted from having cameras in the courtroom.
In 1994, the Federal Judicial Center specifically found that results
from state court evaluations of the effects of electronic media
on jurors and witnesses indicated that most respondents believe
that electronic media presence has minimal or no detrimental effects
on jurors or witnesses. As with the handful of state surveys,
the federal survey found that "most participants (say) electronic
media presence has no or minimal detrimental effects on jurors
or witnesses". [Lassiter, "TV or Not TV -- That is the Question",
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 928, 1940, Vol. 86,
No. 3 (1996), as quoted in the opinion of Justice Puno]
And finally,
our social realities show that it is not television that is the
cause of the flaws of the judicial system, but social inequities.
In court disputes between the poor an underprivileged on one hand
and the wealthy and influential on the other, the scales of justice
are tilted in favor of those with economic and political power.
Many studies have been made on how the judiciary is easily influenced
by the wealthy and powerful. The Social Weather Station in a book
published in 1996 presents the results and extensive surveys it
did on the Philippine judicial system and the legal profession.
Half of the respondents who are judges and non-lawyers in 1993
surveys said that "many if not most" judges can be bribed. The
SWS notes that only 5 of 10 judges and 3 of 10 lawyers think that
the number of corrupt members of the bench is few.
What make
the judiciary imperfect as a human institution is its tendency
to be swayed by pomp and power, not by television.
A fair and
impartial trial
The majority
opinion creates an antagonism between the right to a fair and
impartial trial on one hand, and the right of the public to access
to information of matters of public concern.
The right
of the accused to a fair and impartial trial is the responsibility
of the Court; of judges. It is the responsibility of the judge
to ensure that the case is decided on the basis of the law and
evidence, and should they be less that impartial and fair, they
are accountable to the people.
Being human
should not be an excuse for unjustness. If justices think their
conclusions would be influenced by television, they should stop
watching television. (In fact, one American Supreme Court Justice
prides himself in the fact that he does not own a T.V. set). If
justices think that their opinions will be shaped by what their
neighbors say about them and not by the law and evidence, they
should be barred from administering justice. Judges are supposed
to observe the following canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
Rule 1.01.
A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, probity,
and independence.
Rule 1.02.
A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.
Rule 1.03.
A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the
independence of the judiciary and should forthwith resist any
pressure from whatever sources intended to influence the performance
of official functions.
Rule 2.01.
A judge should at all times promote public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary. It is not necessary for the
proper performance of judicial duty that a judge live in seclusion.
Insofar as workload will permit, it is desirable that a judge
mingle socially and maintain interest in the activities of the
bar.
Rule 2.02.
A judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory.
Rule 2.03.
A judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships
to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial
office should not be lent to advance private interests of others,
nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they
are in a special position to influence the judge.
Rule 3.02.
In every case, a judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain
the facts and the applicable laws, unswayed by partisang interests,
public opinions, or fear of criticism.
These are
the standards by which members of the judiciary live by and dispense
justice. The majority opinion, by holding that the conclusions
of judges and justices can be induced by what comes out on television,
is in effect saying that the members of the judiciary would not
be able to uphold the Code of Judicial Conduct that they have
sworn to observe because of television; therefore ban television
and not weak-minded judges.
A fair and
impartial trial based on a sound decision founded on the evidence
and the law is first and foremost the responsibility of the judge/
justice, and should he fail to render such, he should be barred
from deciding cases forever.
Free speech
Parties herein
request the Honorable Supreme Court to take judicial notice of
the fact that in the Estrada cases, no tape recorders, small cameras
or full-size video cams, no hand-held radios or cellphones, no
microphones, are allowed inside the courtroom where the trial
is held. In other words, the media are not allowed to show what
is going on inside the courtroom. Prohibiting the showing of a
material that is not illegal is a form of prior restraint. The
violation is magnified, because the material involved here is
of public concern and interest.
The right
of the people to information of matters of public interest and
public concern is umbilically linked to the right to free speech.
Without this right, no informed decision and no meaningful exercise
of free speech is possible.
The majority
opinion, by presuming that justices like infants should be shielded
from the harsh reality of public opinion, is sacrificing the constitutional
right of the people to access to information on matters of public
interest at the altar of judicial frailty.
The Test of
Time
The majority
opinion is based on a ten-year-old resolution that ignores advances
in information and communication technology and the heightened
level of media literacy everywhere in the world; it is also a
resolution that ignores scientific studies on the courts and media.
Last Wednesday,
at 1:00 am, CNN News beamed to the world the arraignment of former
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic before the international
criminal court formed by the United Nations, for war crimes committed
in the former Yugoslavia. The entire proceeding was televised
and Milosevic and the members of the court spoke in English. When
asked whether he wanted the indictment read, Milosevic belligerently
said "It's your problem."
Residents
of the Balkan states and Yugoslavia stopped from their household
chores and watched their former president. There was no chanting
or marching. The people have ousted their president and they just
wanted to see how he pleaded.
The members
of the Honorable Court are invited to see these proceedings on
the CNN Channel (Channel 27).
The constitutional
presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused is not affected
by the worldwide airing of the arraignment and trial. The prosecutors
are required to adduce evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The international
criminal court has allowed the television coverage of the Milosevic
trial, and this is the standard set by the United Nations, which
does not see any violation of the right to a fair and impartial
trial.
This is the
most recent standard set as of this time and it is a standard
agreed upon by the community of nations. Prayer
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the party herein respectfully pray television
and radio coverage of the Estrada trial be allowed.
Party prays
for other just and equitable reliefs.
6 July 2001,
Manila, Philippines.
PLUNDERWATCH
By:
DR.
CAROLINA PAGADUAN ARAULLO
FR. JOSE P. DIZON
TEODORO A. CASIÑO
REY P. ASIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
