CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Discussion

This chapter reveals an exposition on the results of the study, detailing how the literature

review and dialogue with resource persons provide a much clearer picture on the effects of

suspect’s identification in crime news coverage in our recent times.

In the first table the respondents provided their understanding of what trial by media is.

Table 1 summarizes the answers of the respondents.

Table 1

Understanding the definition of trial by media

Respondent Response
Respondent A This is an occurrence in which critical media coverage decides
the view on a person’s guilt.

Respondent B Media coverage of a person that creates a wide perception of

Respondent C This is a circumstance when the mass creates a common stand

Respondent D It is a public opinion about whether a person is guilty or not

Respondent E This is an out-of-court public judgement on a certain issue or

The interview with Respondent A, a human rights advocate and public communication

professor centered primarily on explaining how trial by media arises. She explained that issue of
trial by media goes straight to the issue of protecting the rights of a fair trial. Media coverage now

allows us to hear, judge and condemn those accused. As a communication professor, she explained

that media is a very powerful medium that is had been used now and previously, to shape public

opinion and public perception of a certain subject matter, including a criminal case.

Respondent B, a media practitioner and professor said in his interview that if a case unfolds

in the media, by the time a case gets to the court, the supposed impartial trial that afforded in our

laws quivers. The public opinion, pretrial information and allegations may cause serious prejudice

to the parties. A person behind a certain published news has the capacity to brand the person subject

of his writing— he can make an accused appear innocent or make him appear guilty. The intentions

behind an article is another side of the story— but one thing is sure, a news writer has the power

to brand the person subject of his story. That fact alone is threatening to the rights of a person

accused of a crime, the public’s perception about him will be at the mercy of news writers.

Respondent C’s discussion mainly focused on the duty of media to inform the public. She

described that the publishing of news today has different approached in every type of platform;

that tabloid for example are sensationalized to make it appealing to the mass and that different

newspapers, appear more neutral as they are supposed to be. However, she acknowledged that in

every news platform, the authors behind it have different intentions— condense political in nature,

even if the news subject is a crime.

Respondent D, a victim of trial by media, believes that for the legal purpose of fair trial

and for the accused and his family’s rights to privacy, trial by media should be limited. He

acknowledges the rights of the people to information but as an individual entitled of his basic

human rights, he is also entitled to the fair trial and presumption of innocence and that his family

is also entitled of their privacy. He believes that trial by media is much unbridled in this age,
especially in the Philippines where Filipinos are known to fancy the social media. In fact, recent

study shows that a great number of Filipino today rely on the media when it comes to information.

That people tend to believe whatever they see in the media, without verifying whether the

allegations or true or not or whether there is another side of the story.

Respondent D discussed the wide-ranging roles of media in our society. He said that

freedom of media is the freedom of the people as they should be informed of matters in their

community. He said that a free and healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of democracy.

He emphasized that trial by media is not a new concept, but today it is more likely to happen due

to the advancement of technology that enable the world wide web to reach more people. Now the

media has more audience and public opinion can happen in a split of seconds. He described trial

by media as an undue interference in the process of justice delivery. In his observation, when the

media creates a public opinion of an accused while on trial, most likely, it prejudices the public

and sometimes the judges and as a result—the accused— who should be presumed innocent is

presumed as a criminal, leaving all his rights and liberty unrepressed.

Tackling on the main issues of this case, the second table shows how each of the

respondents discussed how trial by media are treated under our existing laws. Table 2 succinctly

exhibits how each respondent perceives the legal treatment of trial by media.

Table 2

Perceptions on how trial by media is treated in the society and under existing laws

Respondent Response
Respondent A Trial by media is not encouraged in our country but it is
unregulated.
Respondent B Controversial because it is in conflict with some rules
 Respondent C We do not contain specific provisions against trial by media,
but we have some legal rules that supports the observance of
its restrictions.
Respondent D The law in trial by media is not enough to suppressed it.

Respondent E They are included in the contempt rule, jurisprudence and some
doctrines that our country recognizes

According to Respondent A, trial by media is not favored in our country. Our constitution

guarantees the protection of the right of the accused to fair trial and privacy, which was the most

basic rights that trial by media violates. Although there was no specific provision that directly

banned trial by media, we have some legal rules that limits its observance. However, as the

technology becomes advance the trial by media and as the world grows older, our country had not

been too keen in keeping making sure trial by media could not exists. The advent of technology

brought so many social platforms and news channels that spread out news like a flash, with their

increasing number and far more too many national issues, trial by media seemed to have not been

a concern. But it didn’t mean that because there were not to many people that had been talking

about it that it don’t exist anymore- it does. Trial by media is even severe now than before because

of the advent of technology however, they are the least concern of our authorities and activist these

days.

Respondent B on the other hand finds trial by media controversial. Controversial because

it clashes between the right of information and free press and the rights of the accused. He said

quoting Justice Brion that it had been long recognized in our jurisdiction that freedom of speech

under section 4 is not absolute. That it must not be used to prejudice or disregard the other equally

constitutional rights and principles. Therefore, the right of free press and information being as

equally important as the basis rights of the accused, must not at all time be given priority. The one

that must be given priority is the rights that will eventually be prejudice because of the exercised
thereof. Thus, there must be a balance with the public’s right to free speech and the government’s

duty to administer fair trial and impartial justice.

Respondent C in his interview had the same view as of the first respondent in this matter.

She said that although we do not contain specific provision against trial by media, we have some

legal rules that supports that restrictions thereof. With her knowledge of the law profession she

discussed that trial by media can be punished under the contempt rule, direct or indirect. In this

rule the acts or conducts which tends to interfere with the business of the court can be punished.

Also the sub judice rule recognized here in our country. The object of sub judice rule is to restrict

comments and disclosures with regard judicial proceedings. The rule applies where court

proceedings are ongoing, and through all stages of appeal until the matter is completed. The rule

does not only to apply to the parties, their witnesses and their layers but the same is applicable to

the public in general, which necessarily includes the media. Respondent C thought that the current

laws we have in the Philippines is enough to protect the accused from any from of curtailment of

rights involving the press however, our authorities still has struggle in implementing not just this

law but also some other laws. That as a matter of fact, we are still have a long way to go when it

comes to proper implementation of our laws not only due to lack of resources but also lack of

voluntariness on most of the Filipinos.

Respondent D on her interview expressed her thoughts how the law against trial by media

in our country is not enough to suppressed it. He said that in his experience, as a victim of trial by

media that even though we have existing rules to suppress this, these rules are not direct and that

it still needs the discretion of a judge in order to be use. Just like the rule in contempt rule, it is still

needs the judges or authorities evaluation whether the alleged violations falls into the contempt
rule. Since the provisions are not express, one person cannot just easily bring his matter in to court

like an ordinary violation. Respondent D assailed that with the advancement of technology and

how the media encourage internet shaming, the lawmakers must be mindful enough to make

further laws or amend our existing laws that can provided a clearer resolution to victims of trial by

media.

Respondent E on this question answered almost the same as respondent C. He recognized

that the Philippines had enough rules and jurisprudence to protect victims of trial by media.

However, because only few cases make up to the courts about this compared to most common

crimes, the authorities had not seen the need to strengthen the implementations or amendments of

the recent laws. Unlike other countries were people are too liberal and to demanding of their rights,

the Philippines had not reach to a point where trial by media had been one of the major concerns

during trials. However, he believes that the recent rule that we had right now is enough to protect

one from internet shaming and prejudices, what should be encouraged nowadays is that for the

victims to use these remedies instead of hiding away from these matters.

Proceeding to the second problem of this research, the third table shows the how the

respondents fully fleshed out the how trial by media affect the constitutional rights of the accused.

Table 3 shows the views of the respective respondent has on how trial by media affects the rights

of the person’s involved in it.

Table 3 How trial by media affect the constitutional rights of the accused

Respondent Response
Respondent A Trial by media invades privacy rights and affects the accused
presumption of guilt
Respondent B Trial by media tips the scales of justice
 Respondent C Trial by media may affect the rights of the accused and his
pending/subsequent trials
Respondent D Trial by media may create a long-lasting effect to the person
subjected to it.
Respondent E Trial by media do not only prejudice the rights of the accused
but also their families

Respondent A discussed how trial by media invades privacy rights and how it may affect

the presumption of guilt of the accused. He elaborated that the media has made it possible to bring

the private life of an individual into public domain exposing him to the risk of an invasion of his

space and privacy. That privacy is not something a person is just entitled to—it is an absolute

prerequisite, however because of the process of globalization, and the development of internet, the

convergence of information beyond technological barriers has become a common affair. Due to

the inadequacy of laws to protect privacy of an individual, initially, the claims of the aggrieved are

now usually based on the malicious falsehood and trespass to a person. This is she thinks as highly

inadequate, since it failed to protect the accused from keeping his personal circumstances away

from public glare.

In his interview, Respondent B posited that at most, the need to balance the right of free

press with the right of an individual to a fair trial was a long cliché unsettled discussion. However,

there was a wide range of difference between yesterday and today’s media; before the flow of

information could largely be still controlled unlike today, the development of computer networks

and satellite TV news are accentuating concern that the law is lagging behind technology.

Respondent B further discussed that pre-trial coverage of the charges has a wounding effect to the

accused and most of the times it encourages hate campaign. Most of the time, these hate campaign

had an adverse effect in the trial of the accused, as it gives a presumption at hand that the accused
is already guilty as what people presumed him to be, which was rather contrary to how our

constitution provision that the accused should be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise.

Respondent C on the other hand provided some criticism on how crime reporting can

expose unfairness in the system for the defendants. Several stories are sensationalized, apart from

the fact that sometimes they are inaccurate or too short to explain the whole context of the story.

Trial by media presents the accused before the courts even decides for it and plays as an active

influencer during trial. In a democratic country like the Philippines where the power is vested upon

the people—the trial by media forms a public opinion against the accused, whether he is guilty or

not and this public opinion eventually are being taken in consideration, as proven in the past, in

the pronouncement of either the guilt and innocence of the accused. This amounts to the denial of

fair trial to the person.

Respondent D said that the effect of trial by media had a long-lasting effect to the person

subjected to such even after trial. Whether the accused is guilty or not, the experience of being

publicly known to everyone in relation to a crime, is horrifying. A person’s exposure to the media

affects the social standing of a person and some psychological setbacks. If the accused will be

proven innocent and will be eventually released, his social life will never be the same. People will

always have a biased opinion about him even he was already proven innocent. Also, if commission

of the crime always makes it out to the news, the release of a person due to his innocence don’t

usually make it out to the news which was quite rather unfair. Because of this people in the

community suspects about an accused’s liberty.

Respondent E revealed that the effects of pre-trial publicity do not only affects the accused,

but its effects extend to his family. He discussed primarily the number of clients he has where the

accused families had been bullied and was treated as a social outcast because on the account of the
accused’s crime. To make the situation worst, because of the broadness of the coverage of media

and how fast the transmission of information today, changing residence does not help at all.

Whenever the accused family goes, they will always a likelihood that they will be linked to the

accused and his crime. There is no escape unfortunately that can alleviate the situation of the

accused’s family because of the crime they did not commit. Respondent E also added that there

are also some circumstances that a stranger not related to the accused may suffer the same fate

specially if they have the same identification of the accused like a name or surname. Due to this,

strangers suffer some social backlash on the account of a crime a person they don not know just

because they are somehow related to them by last name, name or physical features.

As to the last problem, the last table shows the suggested remedial measures that should be adopted

to guarantee the rights of the accused as discussed by the respondents in this thesis.

Table 4 Remedial measures that should be adopted to guarantee the rights of the accused

Respondent Response
Respondent A Reporting restrictions can saved the victim from unnecessary
media hate
Respondent B Total ban of naming suspects somehow gives a balance to
freedom of expression and rights of the suspects
Respondent C Non-publishing means non-identification
Respondent D Suspect’s anonymity saves the suspects from unnecessary
physiological stress
Respondent E The news should not publish any suspects identification subject
to some exceptions

Respondent A shared that reporting restrictions not only to the press but also to the police

personnel who gives out this information to the press will help the suspect not be subject to

unnecessary public hatred. Although she acknowledges that even though the accused can still
pursue other names once his rights are violated, being subject to media hate that harms their

reputation cannot be undone. Therefore, it would be best to restrict them rather than giving remedy

to it once it already happened. Because trial by media usually subjects the person’s reputation and

standing in the society, the consequences of trial by media are severe that sometimes people cannot

endure it. To be popularly recognized and harass online is not something one person can get use

to and the effects linger long that one can imagined. Therefore, respondent A narrated that

restrictions from reporting can saved the accused from the unnecessary public harassment brought

by trial by media.

Respondent B suggested that there must be a total ban on naming any suspects

identification in publishing news crimes. That this act of non-publishing of suspect’s identification

can give justice to both freedom of expression and rights of the suspects. Freedom of expression

as well as right to information is not absolute and it must be harmoniously compliment with the

rights of every individual, suspects or not. Therefore, Respondent B believes that restrictions in

reporting to protect the privacy rights and other rights of an accused does not in a way prejudice

the right of the public to information and freedom of expression. As the restriction of the news is

only limited to suspects identification and not to the publishing of crime itself, then it was not

curtailing any freedom of the press and the people.

Respondent C believed that non-publishing of suspect’s identification only means one

thing, accused’s primary identification profile is not open for public and would therefore save the

face and reputation of these people. She believes that in the Philippines, individuals are prone to

be wrongly accuse of myriad offences and the personal impact of this can be equally catastrophic.

Since there is no determination of probable cause yet, accused must not be named yet because in
this millennial era, one post can make and break a person and it is irreversible. She emphasized

that while there were some guidance against naming suspects that was followed by the police and

regulators, there is no control over suspects being named in the press. She also recalled that in

other countries there is a strong argument that existed for a change in the law to ban the naming of

suspects accused of any crime, save in exceptional circumstances. Thus, she suggested that the

naming of pre-charge suspects should be a carefully considered, controlled decision where the

press can be held accountable if an individual is named with or without the court’s sanction.

Respondent suggests that there should be suspects anonymity specially when there is no

determination of probable cause yet. He said such act is detrimental to the dignity of the person as

well as their families. He recalled his experiences with this particular question when he, together

with his family had been greatly affected by trial by media. He said it would have made a difference

if he were made anonymous in the reporting, his reputation and his family’s reputation should have

not been ruined. He said that at the time because his name and address was clearly identified, it

was very easy for people to cast the prejudices, biases and blame not only to him but also to the

members of his family. With that, not only his personal profession was affected but also his

sibling’s career and their family business. Thus he believed that only if he was made anonymous

that time, they would not have suffered the public hate unnecessarily and their lives would have

been a little better. He added that, making restrictions in publishing suspect’s identification could

actually set the standard of reporting higher. It aimed not only to give importance to the public’s

right to information, the media’s right for freedom of expression but it also gives the accused the

protection he deserves—this he say can make out community better as respecting each other’s

rights bring more harmony.

published but subject to some exceptions and those exceptions are when- the accused escaped, or

he is a threat to public security. Also, he suggests that there must be a distinction between

publishing a private individual and public person. If the accused is a public person, his identity

must be kept anonymous in order to protect his constitutional rights and to avoid trial by media.

However, if the accused is a public person, it must always be published because he said a public

office is embedded with public trust thus the all the people must be informed no matter what. He

added that the reason in providing restrictions is that; these may save an accused from

physiological distress. The case itself that was directed to him was enough factor that may affect

the person’s physiological behavior and the brutality of the effects of trial by media can make it

worst. Non-publishing of suspect’s identification of suspect’s anonymity before charges can help

lessen trial by media as even though the crime itself will be published, the accused, even though

included in the crime reporting was made anonymous, so no matter how much public hate the

people of the Philippines will cast on such person on the media, the subjected person will not suffer

them directly. Unlike in the recent circumstance we had today, accused name pops on crimes

without restrictions that made people easily recognized them and create a biased perception against

him/her.