Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BANC
RE:
REQUEST
RADIO-TV
COVERAGE
OF
THE
TRIAL
IN
THE
SANDIGANBAYAN
OF
THE
PLUNDER
CASES
AGAINST
THE
FORMER
PRESIDENT
JOSEPH
E.
ESTRADA,
SECRETARY
OF
JUSTICE
HERNANDO
PEREZ,
KAPISANAN
NG
MGA
BRODKASTER
NG
PILIPINAS,
CESAR
SARINO,
RENATO
CAYETANO
and
ATTY.
RICARDO
ROMULO,petitioners,
vs.
JOSEPH
E.
ESTRADA
and
INTEGRATED
BAR
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
oppositors.
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
VITUG,
J.:
The
travails
of
a
deposed
President
continue.
The
Sandiganbayan
reels
to
start
hearing
the
criminal
charges
against
Mr.
Joseph
E.
Estrada.
Media
seeks
to
cover
the
event
via
live
television
and
live
radio
broadcast
and
endeavors
this
Court
to
allow
it
that
kind
of
access
to
the
proceedings.
On
13
March
2001,
the
Kapisanan
ng
mga
Brodkaster
ng
Pilipinas
(KBP),
an
association
representing
duly
[1]
franchised
and
authorized
television
and
radio
networks
throughout
the
country,
sent
a
letter
requesting
this
Court
to
allow
live
media
coverage
of
the
anticipated
trial
of
the
plunder
and
other
criminal
cases
filed
against
former
President
Joseph
E.
Estrada
before
the
Sandiganbayan
in
order
"to
assure
the
public
of
full
ransparency
in
[2]
the
proceedings
of
an
unprecedented
case
in
our
history."
The
request
was
seconded
by
Mr.
Cesar
N.
Sarino
in
his
letter
of
05
April
2001
to
the
Chief
Justice
and,
still
later,
by
Senator
Renato
Cayetano
and
Attorney
Ricardo
Romulo.
On
17
April
2001,
the
Honorable
Secretary
of
Justice
Hernando
Perez
formally
filed
the
instant
[3]
petition,
submitting
the
following
exegesis:
"3.
The
foregoing
criminal
cases
involve
the
previous
acts
of
the
former
highest
official
of
the
land,
members
of
his
family,
his
cohorts
and,
therefore,
it
cannot
be
over
emphasized
that
the
prosecution
thereof,
definitely
involves
a
matter
of
public
concern
and
interest,
or
a
matter
over
which
the
entire
citizenry
has
the
right
to
know,
be
informed
and
made
aware
of.
"
4.
There
is
no
gainsaying
that
the
constitutional
right
of
the
people
to
be
informed
on
matters
of
public
concern,
as
in
the
instant
cases,
can
best
be
recognized,
served
and
satisfied
by
allowing
the
live
radio
and
television
coverage
of
the
concomitant
court
proceedings.
"5.
Moreover,
the
live
radio
and
television
coverage
of
the
proceedings
will
also
serve
the
dual
purpose
of
ensuring
the
desired
transparency
in
the
administration
of
justice
in
order
to
disabuse
the
minds
of
the
supporters
of
the
past
regime
of
any
and
all
unfounded
notions,
or
ill-perceived
attempts
on
the
part
of
the
present
dispensation,
to
[4]
'railroad'
the
instant
criminal
cases
against
the
Former
President
Joseph
Ejercito
Estrada."
Public
interest,
the
petition
further
averred,
should
be
evident
bearing
in
mind
the
right
of
the
public
to
vital
information
affecting
the
nation.
In
effect,
the
petition
seeks
a
re-examination
of
the
23rd
October
1991
resolution
of
this
Court
in
a
case
for
libel
filed
by
then
President
Corazon
C.
Aquino.
The
resolution
read:
"The
records
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
are
bereft
of
discussion
regarding
the
subject
of
cameras
in
the
courtroom.
Similarly,
Philippine
courts
have
not
had
the
opportunity
to
rule
on
the
question
squarely.
While
we
take
notice
of
the
September
1990
report
of
the
United
States
Judicial
Conference
Ad
Hoc
Committee
on
Cameras
in
the
Courtroom,
still
the
current
rule
obtaining
in
the
Federal
Courts
of
the
United
States
prohibit
the
presence
of
television
cameras
in
criminal
trials.
Rule
53
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Criminal
Procedure
forbids
the
taking
of
photographs
during
the
progress
of
judicial
proceedings
or
radio
broadcasting
of
such
proceedings
from
the
courtroom.
A
trial
of
any
kind
or
in
any
court
is
a
matter
of
serious
importance
to
all
concerned
and
should
not
be
treated
as
a
means
of
entertainment.
To
so
treat
it
deprives
the
court
of
the
dignity
which
pertains
to
it
and
departs
from
the
orderly
and
serious
quest
for
truth
for
which
our
judicial
proceedings
are
formulated.
"Courts
do
not
discriminate
against
radio
and
television
media
by
forbidding
the
broadcasting
or
televising
of
a
trial
while
permitting
the
newspaper
reporter
access
to
the
courtroom,
since
a
television
or
news
reporter
has
the
same
privilege,
as
the
news
reporter
is
not
permitted
to
bring
his
typewriter
or
printing
press
into
the
courtroom.
"In
Estes
vs.
Texas,
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
held
that
television
coverage
of
judicial
proceedings
involves
an
inherent
denial
of
the
due
process
rights
of
a
criminal
defendant.
Voting
5-4,
the
Court
through
'Mr.
Justice
Clark,
identified
four
(4)
areas
of
potential
prejudice
which
might
arise
from
the
impact
of
the
cameras
on
the
jury,
witnesses,
the
trial
judge
and
the
defendant.
The
decision
in
part
pertinently
stated:
"'Experience
likewise
has
established
the
prejudicial
effect
of
telecasting
on
witnesses.
Witnesses
might
be
frightened,
play
to
the
camera,
or
become
nervous.
They
are
subject
to
extraordinary
out-of-court
influences
which
might
affect
their
testimony.
Also,
telecasting
not
only
increases
the
trial
judge's
responsibility
to
avoid
actual
prejudice
to
the
defendant,
it
may
as
well
affect
his
own
performance.
Judges
are
human
beings
also
and
are
subject
to
the
same
psychologjcal
reactions
as
laymen.
For
the
defendant,
telecasting
is
a
form
of
mental
harassment
and
subjects
him
to
excessive
public
exposure
and
distracts
him
from
the
effective
presentation
of
his
defense.
'The
television
camera
is
a
powerful
weapon
which
intentionally
or
inadvertently
can
destroy
an
accused
and
his
case
in
the
eyes
of
the
public.'
"Representatives
of
the
press
have
no
special
standing
to
apply
for
a
writ
of
mandate
to
compel
a
court
to
permit
them
to
attend
a
trial,
since
within
the
courtroom,
a
reporter's
constitutional
rights
are
no
greater
than
those
of
any
other
member
of
the
public.
Massive
intrusion
of
representatives
of
the
news
media
into
the
trial
itself
can
so
alter
or
destroy
the
constitutionally
necessary
judicial
atmosphere
and
decorum
that
the
requirements
of
impartiality
imposed
by
due
process
of
law
are
denied
the
defendant
and
a
defendant
in
a
criminal
proceeding
should
not
be
forced
to
run
a
gauntlet
of
reporters
and
photographers
each
time
he
enters
or
leaves
the
courtroom.
"Considering
the
prejudice
it
poses
to
the
defendant's
right
to
due
process
as
well
as
to
the
fair
and
orderly
administration
of
justice,
and
considering
further
that
the
freedom
of
the
press
and
the
right
of
the
people
to
information
may
be
served
and
satisfied
by
less
distracting,
degrading
and
prejudicial
means,
live
radio
and
television
coverage
of
court
proceedings
shall
not
be
allowed.
Video
footages
of
court
hearings
for
news
purposes
shall
be
restricted
and
limited
to
shots
of
the
courtroom,
the
judicial
officers,
the
parties
and
their
counsel
taken
prior
to
the
commencement
of
official
proceedings.
No
video
shots
or
photographs
shall
be
permitted
during
the
trial
proper.
"Accordingly,
in
order
to
protect
the
parties
right
to
due
process,
to
prevent
the
distraction
of
the
participants
in
the
proceedings
and
in
the
last
analysis,
to
avoid
miscarriage
of
justice,
the
Court
resolved
to
PROHIBIT
live
radio
and
television
coverage
of
court
proceedings.
Video
footages
of
court
hearings
for
news
purposes
shall
be
limited
and
restricted
as
above
indicated."
Admittedly,
the
press
is
a
mighty
catalyst
in
awakening
public
consciousness,
and
it
has
become
an
important
[5]
instrument
in
the
quest
for
truth.
Recent
history
exemplifies
media's
invigorating
presence,
and
its
contribution
to
society
is
quite
impressive.
The
Court,
just
recently,
has
taken
judicial
notice
of
the
enormous
effect
of
media
in
stirring
public
sentience
during
the
impeachment
trial,
a
partly
judicial
and
partly
political
exercise,
indeed
the
most-watched
program
in
the
boob-tubes
during
those
times,
that
would
soon
culminate
in
EDSA
II.
The
propriety
of
granting
or
denying
the
instant
petition
involve
the
weighing
out
of
the
constitutional
guarantees
of
freedom
of
the
press
and
the
right
to
public
information,
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
fundamental
rights
of
the
accused,
on
the
other
hand,
along
with
the
constitutional
power
of
a
court
to
control
its
proceedings
[6]
in
ensuring
a
fair
and
impartial
trial.
[7]
When
these
rights
race
against
one
another,
jurisprudence
tells
us
that
the
right
of
the
accused
must
be
preferred
to
win.
With
the
possibility
of
losing
not
only
the
precious
liberty
but
also
the
very
life
of
an
accused,
it
behooves
all
to
make
absolutely
certain
that
an
accused
receives
a
verdict
solely
on
the
basis
of
a
just
and
dispassionate
judgment,
a
verdict
that
would
come
only
after
the
presentation
of
credible
evidence
testified
to
by
unbiased
witnesses
unswayed
by
any
kind
of
pressure,
whether
open
or
subtle,
in
proceedings
that
are
devoid
of
histrionics
[8]
that
might
detract
from
its
basic
aim
to
ferret
veritable
facts
free
from
improper
influence,
and
decreed
by
a
judge
with
an
unprejudiced
mind,
unbridled
by
running
emotions
or
passions.
Due
process
guarantees
the
accused
a
presumption
of
innocence
until
the
contrary
is
proved
in
a
trial
that
is
[9]
not
lifted
above
its
individual
settings
nor
made
an
object
of
public's
attention
and
where
the
conclusions
[10]
reached
are
induced
not
by
any
outside
force
or
influence
but
only
by
evidence
and
argument
given
in
open
court,
where
fitting
dignity
and
calm
ambiance
is
demanded.
Witnesses
and
judges
may
very
well
be
men
and
women
of
fortitude,
able
to
thrive
in
hardy
climate,
with
every
reason
to
presume
firmness
of
mind
and
resolute
endurance,
but
it
must
also
be
conceded
that
"television
[11]
can
work
profound
changes
in
the
behavior
of
the
people
it
focuses
on."
Even
while
it
may
be
difficult
to
quantify
the
influence,
or
pressure
that
media
can
bring
to
bear
on
them
directly
and
through
the
shaping
of
public
opinion,
it
is
a
fact,
nonetheless,
that,
indeed,
it
does
so
in
so
many
ways
and
in
varying
degrees.
The
conscious
or
unconscious
effect
that
such
coverage
may
have
on
the
testimony
of
witnesses
and
the
decision
of
judges
cannot
[12]
be
evaluated
but,
it
can
likewise
be
said,
it
is
not
at
all
unlikely
for
a
vote
of
guilt
or
innocence
to
yield
to
it.
It
might
be
farcical
to
build
around
them
an
impregnable
armor
against
the
influence
of
the
most
powerful
media
of
[13]
public
opinion.
To
say
that
actual
prejudice
should
first
be
present
would
leave
to
near
nirvana
the
subtle
threats
to
justice
that
a
disturbance
of
the
mind
so
indispensable
to
the
calm
and
deliberate
dispensation
of
justice
can
[14]
create.
The
effect
of
television
may
escape
the
ordinary
means
of
proof,
but
it
is
not
far-fetched
for
it
to
[15]
gradually
erode
our
basal
conception
of
a
trial
such
as
we
know
it
now.
An
accused
has
a
right
to
a
public
trial
but
it
is
a
right
that
belongs
to
him,
more
than
anyone
else,
where
his
life
or
liberty
can
be
held
critically
in
balance.
A
public
trial
aims
to
ensure
that
he
is
fairly
dealt
with
and
would
not
be
unjustly
condemned
and
that
his
rights
are
not
compromised
in
secrete
conclaves
of
long
ago.
A
public
trial
is
not
synonymous
with
publicized
trial;
it
only
implies
that
the
court
doors
must
be
open
to
those
who
wish
to
come,
sit
in
the
available
seats,
conduct
themselves
with
decorum
and
observe
the
trial
process.
In
the
constitutional
sense,
a
courtroom
should
have
enough
facilities
for
a
reasonable
number
of
the
public
to
observe
the
proceedings,
not
too
small
as
to
render
the
openness
negligible
and
not
too
large
as
to
distract
the
trial
participants
from
their
proper
functions,
who
shall
then
be
totally
free
to
report
what
they
have
observed
during
[16]
the
proceedings.
The
courts
recognize
the
constitutionally
embodied
freedom
of
the
press
and
the
right
to
public
information.
It
also
approves
of
media's
exalted
power
to
provide
the
most
accurate
and
comprehensive
means
of
conveying
the
proceedings
to
the
public
and
in
acquainting
the
public
with
the
judicial
process
in
action;
nevertheless,
within
the
courthouse,
the
overriding
consideration
is
still
the
paramount
right
of
the
accused
to
due
[17]
process
which
must
never
be
allowed
to
suffer
diminution
in
its
constitutional
proportions.
Justice
Clark
thusly
pronounced,
"while
a
maximum
freedom
must
be
allowed
the
press
in
carrying
out
the
important
function
of
informing
the
public
in
a
democratic
society,
its
exercise
must
necessarily
be
subject
to
the
maintenance
of
[18]
absolute
fairness
in
the
judicial
process."
[19]
[20]
This
Court,
in
the
instance
already
mentioned,
citing
Estes
vs.
Texas,
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
holding
the
television
coverage
of
judicial
proceedings
as
an
inherent
denial
of
due
process
rights
of
an
accused,
also
identified
the
following
as
being
likely
prejudices:
"1.
The
potential
impact
of
television
x
x
x
is
perhaps
of
the
greatest
significance.
x
x
x.
From
the
moment
the
trial
judge
announces
that
a
case
will
be
televised
it
becomes
a
cause
celebre.
The
whole
community,
x
x
x
becomes
interested
in
all
the
morbid
details
surrounding
it.
The
approaching
trial
immediately
assumes
an
important
status
in
the
public
press
and
the
accused
is
highly
publicized
along
with
the
offense
with
which
he
is
charged.
Every
juror
carries
with
him
into
the
jury
box
these
solemn
facts
and
thus
increases
the
chance
of
prejudice
that
is
present
in
every
criminal
case.
x
x
x
"2.
The
quality
of
the
testimony
in
criminal
trials
will
often
be
impaired.
The
impact
upon
a
witness
of
the
knowledge
that
he
is
being
viewed
by
a
vast
audience
is
simply
incalculable.
Some
may
be
demoralized
and
frightened,
some
cocky
and
given
to
overstatement;
memories
may
falter,
as
with
anyone
speaking
publicly,
and
accuracy
of
statement
may
be
severely
undermined.
x
x
x.
Indeed,
the
mere
fact
that
the
trial
is
to
be
televised
might
render
witnesses
reluctant
to
appear
and
thereby
impede
the
trial
as
well
as
the
discovery
of
the
truth.
"3.
A
major
aspect
of
the
problem
is
the
additional
responsibilities
the
presence
of
television
places
on
the
trial
judge.
His
job
is
to
make
certain
that
the
accused
receives
a
fair
trial.
This
most
difficult
task
requires
his
undivided
attention.
x
x
x
4.
Finally,
we
cannot
ignore
the
impact
of
courtroom
television
on
the
defendant.
Its
presence
is
a
form
of
mental
-
if
not
physical-harassment,
resembling
a
police
line-up
or
the
third
degree.
The
inevitable
close-up
of
his
gestures
and
expressions
during
the
ordeal
of
his
trial
might
well
transgress
his
personal
sensibilities,
his
dignity,
and
his
ability
to
concentrate
on
the
proceedings
before
him
-
sometimes
the
difference
between
life
and
death
-
dispassionately,
freely
and
without
the
distraction
of
wide
public
surveillance.
A
defendant
on
trial
for
a
specific
crime
is
entitled
to
his
day
in
court,
not
in
a
stadium,
or
a
city
or
nationwide
arena.
The
heightened
public
clamor
resulting
from
radio
and
television
coverage
will
inevitably
result
in
prejudice."
In
his
concurring
opinion
in
Estes,
Mr.
Justice
Harlan
opined
that
live
television
and
radio
coverage
could
have
mischievous
potentialities
for
intruding
upon
the
detached
atmosphere
that
should
always
surround
the
judicial
[21]
process.
The
Integrated
Bar
of
the
Philippines,
in
its
Resolution
of
16
April
2001,
expressed
its
own
concern
on
the
live
television
and
radio
coverage
of
the
criminal
trials
of
Mr.
Estrada;
to
paraphrase:
Live
television
and
radio
coverage
can
negate
the
rule
on
exclusion
of
witnesses
during
the
hearings
intended
to
assure
a
fair
trial;
at
stake
in
the
criminal
trial
is
not
only
the
life
and
liberty
of
the
accused
but
the
very
credibility
of
the
Philippine
criminal
justice
system,
and
live
television
and
radio
coverage
of
the
trial
could
allow
the
"hooting
throng"
to
arrogate
unto
themselves
the
task
of
judging
the
guilt
of
the
accused,
such
that
the
verdict
of
the
court
will
be
acceptable
only
if
popular;
and
live
television
and
radio
coverage
of
the
trial
will
not
subserve
the
ends
of
justice
but
will
only
pander
to
the
desire
for
publicity
of
a
few
grandstanding
lawyers.
It
may
not
be
unlikely,
if
the
minority
position
were
to
be
adopted,
to
see
protracted
delays
in
the
prosecution
of
cases
before
trial
courts
brought
about
by
petitions
seeking
a
declaration
of
mistrial
on
account
of
undue
publicity
and
assailing
a
court
a
quo's
action
either
allowing
or
disallowing
live
media
coverage
of
the
court
proceedings
because
of
supposed
abuse
of
discretion
on
the
part
of
the
judge.
En
passant,
the
minority
would
view
the
ponencia
as
having
modified
the
case
law
on
the
matter.
Just
to
the
contrary,
the
Court
effectively
reiterated
its
standing
resolution
of
23
October
1991.
Until
1991,
the
Court
had
yet
rd
to
establish
the
case
law
on
the
matter,
and
when
it
did
in
its
23
October
resolution,
it
confirmed,
in
disallowing
live
television
and
radio
coverage
of
court
proceedings,
that
"the
records
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
(were)
bereft
of
discussion
regarding
the
subject
of
cameras
in
the
courtroom"
and
that
"Philippine
courts
(had)
not
(theretofore)
had
the
opportunity
to
rule
on
the
question
squarely."
But
were
the
cases
decided
by
the
U.S.
courts
and
cited
in
the
minority
opinion
really
in
point?
[22]
In
Nebraska
Press
Association
vs.
Stewart,
the
Nebraska
State
trial
judge
issued
an
order
restraining
news
media
from
publishing
accounts
of
confession
or
admissions
made
by
the
accused
or
facts
strongly
implicating
[23]
him.
The
order
was
struck
down.
In
Richmond
Newspaper,
Inc.,
vs.
Virginia,
the
trial
judge
closed
the
courtroom
to
the
public
and
all
participants
except
witnesses
when
they
testify.
The
judge
was
reversed
by
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
which
ruled
that
criminal
trials
were
historically
open.
In
Globe
Newspaper
vs.
Superior
[24]
Court,
the
US
Supreme
Court
voided
a
Massachusetts
law
that
required
trial
judges
to
exclude
the
press
and
the
public
from
the
courtroom
during
the
testimony
of
a
minor
victim
of
certain
sexual
offenses.
[25]
Justice
Stewart,
in
Chandler
vs.
Florida,
where
two
police
officers
charged
with
burglary
sought
to
overturn
their
conviction
before
the
US
Supreme
Court
upon
the
ground
that
the
television
coverage
had
infringed
their
right
to
fair
trial,
explained
that
"the
constitutional
violation
perceived
by
the
Estes
Court
did
not
stem
from
the
physical
disruption
that
might
one
day
disappear
with
technological
advances
in
the
television
equipment
but
inhered,
rather,
in
the
hypothesis
that
the
mere
presence
of
cameras
and
recording
devices
might
have
an
effect
[26]
on
the
trial
participants
prejudicial
to
the
accused."
Parenthetically,
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
and
other
federal
courts
do
not
allow
live
television
and
radio
coverage
of
their
proceedings.
The
sad
reality
is
that
the
criminal
cases
presently
involved
are
of
great
dimensions
so
involving
as
they
do
a
former
President
of
the
Republic.
It
is
undeniable
that
these
cases
have
twice
become
the
nation's
focal
points
in
the
two
conflicting
phenomena
of
EDSA
II
and
EDSA
III
where
the
magnitude
of
the
events
has
left
a
still
divided
nation.
Must
these
events
be
invited
anew
and
risk
the
relative
stability
that
has
thus
far
been
achieved?
The
transcendental
events
in
our
midst
do
not
allow
us
to,
turn
a
blind
eye
to
yet
another
possible
extraordinary
case
of
mass
action
being
allowed
to
now
creep
into
even
the
business
of
the
courts
in
the
dispensation
of
justice
under
a
rule
of
law.
At
the
very
least,
a
change
in
the
standing
rule
of
the
court
contained
in
its
resolution
of
23
October
1991
may
not
appear
to
be
propitious.
Unlike
other
government
offices,
courts
do
not
express
the
popular
will
of
the
people
in
any
sense
which,
instead,
are
tasked
to
only
adjudicate
justiciable
controversies
on
the
basis
of
what
alone
is
submitted
before
[27]
them.
A
trial
is
not
a
free
trade
of
ideas.
Nor
is
a
competing
market
of
thoughts
the
known
test
truth
in
a
[28]
courtroom.
The
Court
is
not
all
that
unmindful
of
recent
technological
and
scientific
advances
but
to
chance
forthwith
the
life
or
liberty
of
any
person
in
a
hasty
to
bid
to
use
and
apply
them,
even
before
ample
safety
nets
are
provided
and
the
concerns
heretofore
expressed
are
aptly
addressed,
is
a
price
too
high
to
pay.
WHEREFORE,
the
petition
is
DENIED.
SO
ORDERED.
Pardo,
Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes,
and
De
Leon,
Jr.,
JJ.,
concur.
Davide,
Jr.,
C.J.,
Bellosillo,
and
Quisumbing,
JJ.,
joins
the
dissenting
opinion
of
Puno,
J.
Puno,
and
Panganiban,
JJ.,
see
dissenting
opinion.
Kapunan,
and
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
JJ.,
see
concurring
opinion.
Melo,
J.,
joins
the
dissents.
Mendoza,
J.,
concur
in
the
majority
opinion
of
Vitug,
J.,
and
join
the
separate
opinion
of
Kapunan,
J.
Ynares-Santiago,
J.,
on
leave.
[1]
[2]
[3]
"Petition
to
Allow
Live
Radio
and
Television
Coverage
of
the
Court
Hearings
on
the
Plunder
and
Other
Criminal
Cases
Filed
Against
Former
President
Joseph
Ejercito
Estrada,
et
al.,
Pending
Before
the
Sandiganbayan."
[4]
[5]
[6]
Re: Live TV and radio coverage of the hearing of President Corazon C. Aquino Libel Case; infra.
[7]
People vs. Alarcon, 60 Phil 265; Estes vs. Texas, 381 US 532; Sheppard vs. Maxwell, 384 US 333
[8]
People vs.; Stapleton, 18 Colo. 568, 33 p. 167, 23. L.R.A 787, (1983)
[9]
nd
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
As
Mr
Justice
Jackson,
dissenting
in
Craig
vs.
Harney,
331
U.S.
396,
aptly
said:
'Who
does
not
prefer
good
to
ill
report
of
his
work?
And
if
fame
-a
good
public
name
-is,
as
Milton
said,
the
"last
Infirmity
of
the
noble
mind,"
it
is
frequently
the
"first
infirmity
of
a
mediocre
one."
[14]
Freedom of the Press vs. Impartial Justice," MLQ Quarterly, Volume 6, No.2, p.100
[15]
Cf. Fay v. New York, 332 US 261; Offut vs. United States, 348 US 11
[16]
Ibid., p.574
[17]
[18]
[19]
Re: Live TV and radio coverage of Pres. Corazon Aquino's Libel case, 23 October 1991
[20]
[21]
[22]
427 US 539.
[23]
448 US 555.
[24]
457 US 596.
[25]
449 US 560
[26]
Ibid, p. 758.
[27]
Supra, p. 6
[28]
Frankfurter, J., dissenting in Bridges vs. California, 314 U.S. 252, 283