Babe's Eye View article

Last Thursday, I was requested to appear before the Supreme Court not as a defendant but to be a panel reactor to the very first “Chief Justice Renato C. Corona Distinguished Lecture.” Chief Justice Robert Torres Jr. of the Unified Courts of Guam was the main speaker. Chief Justice Torres, a colleague of CJ Rene Corona at the Harvard Law School, lectured on the topic “Media and the Courts.” It was in fact a very interesting discourse with the Guam chief magistrate emphasizing the need for the courts to be more effective in communicating its decisions through different social networks but at the same time, clearly pointing out that traditional media can still strongly influence public opinion most especially when it comes to high-profile cases.

Perhaps of all the branches of government, the judiciary is probably one of the least understood by the public simply because it involves complex matters couched in specialized, hard-to-comprehend jargon or legalese that ordinary Filipinos have difficulty comprehending. “People don’t trust what they don’t understand,” the Guam chief magistrate said, and that is precisely the case regarding the decision of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to enter into a plea bargaining agreement with former Army comptroller Gen. Carlos Garcia.

I personally thought the decision of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez ordering Special Prosecutor Wendell Sulit, Deputy Special Prosecutor Jesus Micael and Assistant Special Prosecutor Joseph Capistrano to hold a press conference was a wise move. The explanation in detail to the media about the merits of the Garcia plea bargain will undoubtedly—at the very least—correct the public perception that this was “lutong Macau.” More people are beginning to understand that accusing someone of a crime is an entirely different story from proving an accusation with hard evidence. And that’s exactly what the Ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor is saying—that there was no strong evidence to convict Garcia and prove that he was guilty of plunder “beyond reasonable doubt.”

But what really made it difficult for the OSP was the fact that not one of the military suppliers was willing to come out and testify that Garcia received bribes or kickbacks in exchange for contract approvals and this of course is for very obvious reasons. Besides, the military itself from where Garcia allegedly stole money also attested that some P50 million reportedly unaccounted for (from the AFP Inter-Agency fund during Garcia’s tenure) was not really missing but was just a case of “wrong posting.” As the special prosecutors pointed out, Garcia’s ill-gotten wealth is something that has yet to be proven.

A number of lawyers and ordinary citizens sympathize with Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez who was bombarded with all kinds of innuendoes and accusations mostly coming from former officials who left the Tanodbayan with acrimony and have long been at odds with her. Some of Merci’s Ateneo law classmates have come forward to attest to her honesty and straightforwardness. They all agree that she worked very hard to get where she is and they are certain she will not ruin her legal career by compromising her work as Ombudsman.

As pointed out by Guam’s Chief Justice Torres, there have been so many decisions that may be unpopular to the public but on closer scrutiny, are in fact legally sound. Which is why the courts should not be compelled to decide a case based on strong public clamor. Judicial independence should always be maintained and the judiciary must perform its functions without submitting to any improper or undue influence by the media or the public. Torres also mentioned that threats of impeachment against members of the judiciary are nothing new particularly when members of Congress disagree with a judge’s decision—something that we Filipinos are already familiar with.

Supreme Court Public Information Office chief Jose Midas Marquez, my co-reactor during the lecture, pointed out that court decisions must be announced in a manner that is understandable to the public and if need be, for decisions to be written in the vernacular. Effective administration of justice, he said, goes hand-in-hand with the public’s acceptance of the courts and that includes acceptance of the decisions.

Media’s role should more often than not be adversarial in a functioning democracy. But it is also media’s responsibility to inform the public about the judicial process and observe the “rules of engagement” especially in highly sensational cases that involve well-known personalities with the elements of sex, money and power thrown in. After all, there is the principle of due process and media should not undermine this by trying to insinuate or second-guessing who is guilty or not.

In my reaction to the lecture, I talked about the thin line that separates where the media stops and the courts step in and sometimes, overstepping the boundaries can undermine the right of the accused to a fair trial. A person’s life and reputation can be ruined through “trial by publicity” and unfortunately in this country, perception is 90 percent of the game. Very often people automatically pre-judge a suspect as guilty by just his mere looks or by simple association.

There is no question media should always exercise fairness and objectivity by presenting the facts accurately without pontificating or editorializing. Their main task is to make information available and let the public make its own conclusions. Supreme Court PIO chief Midas Marquez correctly said the sword of Lady Justice should be mightier than the pen of the journalist. But when the court fails to properly communicate its promulgations and decisions to the public then inevitably this turns things around—the pen becomes mightier than Lady Justice’s sword.