Fair, relevantReporting the Corona Trial
By Kathryn Roja G. Raymundo and John Reiner M. Antiquerra, PJR Reports May-July 2012
THE PRESS covered the last days of the Corona impeachment trial using the same approach when the trial began. Print reported the day-to-day developments, with the stories often landing on the front-page. Radio and television as well as online sites covered the proceedings live.
Sidebar:
The opinion pieces continued to reflect the diversity of views that had characterized commentary since Jan. 16 when the hearings started. Those who saw the trial as a case of purely political vengeance, a minority, maintained that view to the end. But some news reports and analyses were exceptional for initiating discussion beyond the daily coverage, providing background information on the issues, and, unlike in the previous months, including more stories on the public’s views.
PJR Reports (PJRR) monitored three Manila newspapers (Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and The Philippine Star), television news programs (24 Oras, Aksyon, and TV Patrol), and selected online news websites from May 1 to 31, of which the Senate Impeachment Court held 10 trial days.
The Senate Impeachment Court convicted Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona on Article II of the complaint—“Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed the public trust when he failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilites, and net worth (SALN) as required under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution”—with a vote of 20 (against 3) guilty as charged.
Corona admitted that he did not declare in his SALN four dollar accounts (US$2.4 million) and three peso accounts (Php80 million) because these were covered by absolute confidentiality under the Foreign Currency Deposits Act (FCDA) and were “co-mingled” funds with wife and children, respectively.
Two Supreme Court decisions convicted government employees for a similar offense (May 1997, court interpreter Delsa Flores and January 2011, internal revenue officer Nieto Racho).
Trial by publicity?
According to Corona and his allies, President Benigno S. Aquino III led the government’s “orchestrated and systematic attacks” against him including the “media demonization” to guarantee his removal from office.
The defense appealed to the prosecution to avoid discussing the trial and other related issues in public as this constitutes trial by publicity (“Corona team slams prosecution’s trial by publicity”).
“Basketball lang ito, let’s play in the court. Let the court decide,” defense lawyer Jose Roy III said.
But the wall-to-wall coverage of the impeachment trial allowed both camps the opportunity to explain their side and to comment on the proceedings. As a result, the press coverage tended to focus on the spin of whichever camp was speaking—the senator-judges, the prosecution, the defense, and/or the witnesses.
The daily news reports merely summarized what had happened in the impeachment court. But if some issues were not discussed in the trial, all the parties provided narratives and counter-narratives outside the impeachment court and through the talk shows over television.
Former Court of Appeals Justice Arsenio Solidum’s discussion of “Trial by publicity” alleged that:
“…while everyone should recognize the tremendous service of our enterprising free press in vigilantly exposing wrong-doing and corruption, in aiding the detection of the guilty and in throwing the limelight of publicity on matters affecting the government and its administration, in its enthusiasm, it should not attempt to deprive a man of a fair trial which is a dangerous and deadly thing to do….
“Finally, I refuse to believe that our judges can be subjected to pressure. However, they should rarely invoke penalties for such pressure. They should resolve any doubt in favor of the free press and let the penalty emanate from public opinion rather than the court.” (Philippine Law Journal, Vol. 34, No. 4, University of the Philippines, September 1959)
Since news organizations aired the proceedings live, the trial was open to the public’s full scrutiny. Interested citizens had direct access to the day’s events and could decide for themselves if the trial and the judgment were fair as well as whether the news reports were biased.
[…] Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile so recently cheered and lionized for his stunningly diligent pursuit of truth in the judgment of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Coming to the defense of […]