Covering CoronaMedia in aid of accountability

In  context

Commentaries provided the most context and analyses on the impeachment trial. Special reports, especially online news, also provided background materials.

The columns and editorials reflected the polarity of views with regard to the impeachment process: is it political or legal in nature; is it exacting accountability from or assaulting the independence of the judiciary; do surveys reflect or influence public opinion?

The newspaper commentaries reviewed past impeachment trials including Estrada’s and that of former United States  President Bill Clinton, interpreted polls/surveys, and explained the culture of the Supreme Court and judicial procedure.

Without a basic legal knowledge and understanding of the language of the courts, working journalists—consequently, the public—have found the  impeachment complex and the implication of this trial hard to grasp.  The participation of experts and analysts helped the public make sense of the day’s hearing. For example, TV Patrol interviewed three legal academics (Vicky Avena, University of the Philippines; Amado Valdez, University of the East; and Nilo Divina, University of Santo Tomas) to scrutinize the past two weeks of the impeachment trial. (Jan. 27) The academics explained in Filipino the possible consequences of the actions of the prosecution and defense. They also maintained that the decision of the Senate should not only be guided by the tenets of democracy and evidence, but more importantly, by the public’s pulse.

News reports on the public’s difficulties in following the impeachment trial because of the language barrier swayed the impeachment court to conduct the trial in Filipino and to reduce the use of legal jargon.

Infographics and primers on what impeachment is, profiles of the prosecution and defense panel members, summaries of the articles of impeachment and Corona’s reply made the issue and arguments quick to access and easier to understand. 

Media’s role

The media helped build Estrada’s pro-poor image which won him the presidency, but that image was shattered when the press exposed his misuse of public funds which eventually led to his downfall. Such is the power of the media in exacting accountability.

News and media organizations shape public opinion. Through the press, the public sees how the government serves them. In the administration of justice, the press’“…involvement in the legal process ranges from being an observer to commentator and critic (Perfecto V. Fernandez, Law of Mass Media, 1984, p. 355).

“Thus, the press serves as one of the instruments by which the right of the people to information on matters of public concern is actualized. In the US case  Richmond Newspapers Inc., et al. v. Virginia, et al., (448 US 555 [1980]) it was held that:  ‘xxx a trial courtroom is a public place where the people and the representatives of media, generally, have a right to be present, and where their presence has been historically thought to enhance the integrity and the quality of what takes place.’” (“Corona impeachment: Legal guide for press coverage”, Inquirer, Jan. 22)

The people’s answer

According to a paper which analyzed the policy behind the impeachment of Justices of the Supreme Court: “Judicial impeachment under Philippine Law, as a manifestation of the ‘goals, objectives, values, (and) ideas’ of our society, is an acknowledgement of both the high dignity and respect accorded to the Justices of the Supreme Court and the equally high standards demanded of their conduct. Borrowing from the richer experience of the American history on judicial impeachment, Supreme Court Justices must likewise be subjected to a stricter criterion of impeachability, in comparison to executive or legislative officers, due to the nature of their judicial office.

“Clearly, it is an indispensable requirement for a ‘republican and democratic’ society such as ours, which values the rule of law and fairness, to have Justices of the Supreme Court who exemplify the highest standards of behavior and whose conduct and character are, in the fullest and truest sense, ‘unimpeachable.’” (“Grounds for impeachment of Justices of the Supreme Court – A political analysis”, Handbook on impeachment under the 1987 Constitution, Atty. Adel A. Tamano, MPA)

At the end of this issue, the Senators—which make up the impeachment court—as stated by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban: “will have to ask themselves: We are deciding this case because we are the representatives of the people. The litmus test is, will the public interest, will the people’s interest be served better by retaining or by ousting the impeached official?” (24 Oras, Jan. 13)

Much like in the time of Estrada, the on-going impeachment trial requires the most complete, unbiased, and balanced reporting of the proceedings to enable Filipinos to do exactly that: to judge for themselves.

<<Previous Page