Don’t you find it rather baffling that the Supreme Court has to pull yet another flip-flopping on a previously-made decision? I guess, this might just be running in the minds of a lot of people when, for no apparent reason, they had to reverse their decision regarding the live broadcast of the highly-publicized Ampatuan Massacre Trial. Originally the Supreme Court agreed to a camera broadcast of the trial proceedings on 14 June 2011, with uninterrupted broadcast, no replays of any part of the trial and no voice-overs or annotations of the trial proper, but reversed it later on in favor of the accused, Andal Ampatuan, Jr., who petitioned that such coverage will deprive him of his rights to due process.
I do not see how a public telecast can affect the case in anyway, apart from allowing the people to see how it goes and giving us a perspective of the progress of the case. And, although, we may not play a significant role on how this case will be decided on, I believe the people has the right to see the proceedings, however limited and restricted may that be. We may not be related to the victims of this crime, but we are all hoping that justice will be given where they are due and that punishments will be dealt out to those who are guilty.
What do you think has prompted them to reverse their first decision? Is this a subtle attempt to hoodwink the public of the goings-on about the case proceedings? Is someone with power trying to pull strings here? I do not think the Supreme Court can stop the public from formulating one ugly opinion after another about its action. This is, after all, a high-profile case and everyone is simply raring to see how it all ends.
I am not sure whether this flip-flopping of decisions happens to every high-profile case there is, but I do hope this will not, in any way, affect the outcome of the cases. Reversing of decisions can very well spell trouble somewhere and I do hope this is not the case here. What’s your take?