Joel Mahinay of the Union of People’s Lawyers in Mindanao said that “the ruling is anathema to the nature of a public trial and transparency,” adding that the trial “involves public interest which any invocation of the individual right of the accused must be subordinated.”
By MARILOU AGUIRRE-TUBURAN
Davao Today
DAVAO CITY, Philippines — Unfortunate.
This was how Jesuit priest Joel Tabora described the latest ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) which bars the live media coverage of hearings on the Ampatuan massacre.
Tabora, president of the Ateneo de Davao University, said the “People should be allowed to help prevent miscarriage of justice.”
In its en banc resolution dated 23 October 2012, the SC “partially” granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed on 27 June 2011 by Andal Ampatuan Jr. which sought to bar the live coverage of the proceedings of the case.
Ampatuan Jr. is one of the primary suspects of the gruesome murder of 58 individuals including the 33 media workers in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao province on 23 November 2009.
Ampatuan Jr.’s motion alleged that the 14 June 2011 Resolution “deprives him of his rights to due process, equal protection, presumption of innocence, and to be shielded from degrading psychological punishment,” the SC resolution stated.
But lawyer Karlos Zarate, Bayan Muna Party’s second nominee, was not happy with the decision, saying “the SC sacrificed the primordial consideration of the people’s right to know over the supposed private rights of the accused.”
He added, the live coverage of the Ampatuan massacre trial will ensure that this “brutal, heinous, inhuman crime that is emblematic of the state of impunity still sweeping our country will not be forgotten and justice, however slowly it grinds, will be rendered.”
While the High Court said it has sought a way to provide a public trial as required by the Constitution and the Rules, which it said, 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,” another lawyer here is certainly not happy.
Joel Mahinay of the Union of People’s Lawyers in Mindanao said that “the ruling is anathema to the nature of a public trial and transparency,” adding that the trial “involves public interest which any invocation of the individual right of the accused must be subordinated.”
He urged the organization of media workers, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, to “ask for reconsideration.”
The en banc resolution said that it “recognized the freedom of the press and the right to public information.” However, it said, “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 recognized, jurisprudence makes it clear that the balance should always be weighed in favor of the accused,” the SC ruling said.
“This is big blow to the judicial transparency and right to information given that the massacre is both multiple murder and an affront to press freedom,” said lawyer Harry Roque.
The Amnesty International (AI)-Philippines said the SC decision is an “unwelcome development.”
“We are deeply concerned that without the public eye, the trial might be delayed further prolonging the agony of the families of the victims who are awaiting justice,” said Ritz Lee Santos, chair of AI-Philippines.
He added, the Filipinos and the world are monitoring the trial of the Ampatuan massacre. “People deserve to know and be updated on the judicial process to seek justice for the victims who were brutally killed three years ago.”
For Bayan Muna Representative, Neri Colmenares, “The length of the trial will surely favor the Ampatuans as they hope that public interest and attention will wane as years go by.”
He said the SC decision to ban live coverage is a deadly blow to the efforts of the victims’ family to ensure that peoples’ interest and attention will not wane.
“This is a public interest case not just for us but for the international community as well and the SC should have allowed its live coverage and promote transparency in the trial of such a heinous crime. We urge the court to reconsider its decision,” Colmenares said. (Marilou Aguirre-Tuburan/davaotoday.com
