Another flip-flopping case?
Published by the Visayan Daily Star Publications, Inc.
|NINFA R. LEONARDIA|
Editor-in-Chief & President
NIDA A. BUENAFE
MAJA P. DELY
ANTONIO L. LEONARDIA|
It is understandable that so many agencies and groups are virtually up in arms against the recent decision of the Supreme Court to ban the live coverage of the hearings on the infamous Maguindanao Massacre where a very prominent local family – read that as “dynasty” – was involved.
It has been more than two years now since that unspeakable crime took place in a distant province in Mindanao, where a civilian group, composed mostly of women relatives of prospective candidates and media people, were set upon by a gang allegedly linked to the ruling Ampatuan family, mercilessly murdered, and their dead or bleeding bodies left under the sun, or hastily covered with soil. Reports have persisted that a member or members of the Ampatuan family had been noted among the perpetrators.
The massacre shocked the entire world, many of its people wondering what kind of savages we have in this country who could be capable of inflicting such cruelty to innocent human beings who had gone to their place, unarmed, and in a mission of peace, that is, to file the certificates of candidacy of potential candidates in the coming elections.
Some of the suspects have been arrested and are now under government custody, but more than half of those involved are still at large. For some reason or other, the hearings have been delayed, and now that the court is seriously looking into it, here comes a ruling from the Supreme Court, declaring that live coverage of the trial will not be allowed, because one of the prime suspects had claimed that such coverage will deprive him and the other accused of the right to equal protection and presumption of innocence, and subject them to psychological punishment!
Look who’s talking! Is all we can say.
In the meantime, it look as if the Supreme Court is back again to its flip-flopping ways. Only on June 24, 2011, it had ruled to allow the live coverage. Now it has obviously changed its mind. Did we really have changes in that High Court?*