We were all appalled by the news that happened in Maguindanao years ago, which was tagged as the Maguindanao Massacre. When the trial started in 2011, the court decided on June 14 of the same year to allow a live coverage of the trial provided that there must be “no voice-overs or annotations of the trial proper; the prohibition of replaying any part of the trial, except on finality of judgment; and that the broadcast be uninterrupted.”
Every Filipino people were stuck on their TV during the trial sessions to make sure that they are informed with the latest updates on the Maguindanao Massacre. Everybody was eager to learn how the trial is progressing; and because not everyone can be inside the court on those days, media is the only alternative to do so.
Sadly, on the Supreme Court’s ruling last October 23, 2012 which was released Monday, November 12, 2013, it reversed its initial decision to allow a live coverage of the said high profile case, and favored Andal Ampatuan Jr.’s (one of the primary suspects) motion to disallow the said live coverage during trial sessions. According to Ampatuan, “public trial will be a breach of his rights to equal protection and presumption of innocence”. The Court explained that a “camera that broadcasts the proceedings live on television has no place in a criminal trial because of its prejudicial effects on the rights of the accused individuals.” The SC’s resolution indicated that the media and the relatives of those who were killed (and of the accused’s) during the Massacre, can still monitor the proceedings via closed-circuit television.
Now, I’m wondering why did the Supreme Court reverse its initial ruling regarding live coverage of such case? Why such flip flopping? Is it possible that they want to hide the “real score” from the public? Are we expecting a “blind justice” here and the truth be hidden from the public? Is it also possible that the same thing will happen to other high-profile cases? Share your thoughts below.