CA VS VA
Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases Against Maguindanao
Governor Zaldy Ampatuan
Facts:Almost a year after the Maguindanao Massacre, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, broadcasting networks, and the relatives of the victims, filed a petition before the Court, praying that live television and radio coverage of the trial in the criminal cases be allowed, and that recording devices
(e.g., still cameras, tape recorders) be permitted inside the courtroom.
Petitioners seek the lifting of the absolute ban on live television and radio coverage of court proceedings, contending that previous rulings regarding such matter, violate the doctrine that proposed restrictions on constitutional rights are to be narrowly construed and outright prohibition cannot stand when regulation is a viable alternative.
Issue:
WON lifting the absolute ban on live broadcasting of court proceedings in the case would infringe constitutional rights
Held:
Respecting the possible influence of media coverage on the impartiality of trial court judges, the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. Pervasive/Influencing publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair trial, and that there must be allegation and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. Mere fear of possible undue influence is not tantamount to actual prejudice resulting in the deprivation of the right to a fair trial. Hence, the court allowed pro hac vice the live broadcasting.
Almost a year after the Maguindanao Massacre, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, broadcasting networks, and the relatives of the victims, filed a petition before the Court, praying that live television and radio coverage of the trial in the criminal cases be allowed, and that recording devices
(e.g., still cameras, tape recorders) be permitted inside the courtroom.
Petitioners
Governor Zaldy Ampatuan
Facts:Almost a year after the Maguindanao Massacre, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, broadcasting networks, and the relatives of the victims, filed a petition before the Court, praying that live television and radio coverage of the trial in the criminal cases be allowed, and that recording devices
(e.g., still cameras, tape recorders) be permitted inside the courtroom.
Petitioners seek the lifting of the absolute ban on live television and radio coverage of court proceedings, contending that previous rulings regarding such matter, violate the doctrine that proposed restrictions on constitutional rights are to be narrowly construed and outright prohibition cannot stand when regulation is a viable alternative.
Issue:
WON lifting the absolute ban on live broadcasting of court proceedings in the case would infringe constitutional rights
Held:
Respecting the possible influence of media coverage on the impartiality of trial court judges, the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. Pervasive/Influencing publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair trial, and that there must be allegation and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. Mere fear of possible undue influence is not tantamount to actual prejudice resulting in the deprivation of the right to a fair trial. Hence, the court allowed pro hac vice the live broadcasting.
Almost a year after the Maguindanao Massacre, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, broadcasting networks, and the relatives of the victims, filed a petition before the Court, praying that live television and radio coverage of the trial in the criminal cases be allowed, and that recording devices
(e.g., still cameras, tape recorders) be permitted inside the courtroom.
Petitioners