Inquirer publishes mug shots of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (re-published by this blog: People vs. Arroyo et al for electoral sabotage, a capital offense)

The Inquirer publishes mug shots of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (republished by this blog: People vs. Arroyo for electoral sabotage, a capital offense)

       In the interest of the right of the people to know whether or not the police and other civil servants performed their duties in the arrest and booking of the  

the accused,and whether the government in general is performing its duty in ensuring that the laws of the land are being followed, these photos  which the Inquirer said were the mug shots of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in People vs.  Arroyo for electoral sabotage are being republished in this blog. 

The Inquirer caption is as follows: “MUG SHOTS These mug shots of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did not come from the Pasay City Regional Trial Court which has refused to release the police photos. Sources who requested anonymity sent the photos to the Inquirer. CONTRIBUTED PHOTO”

Beyond public curiosity and voyeurism, there is a public interest to be served in monitoring the proceedings in the case People vs. Macapagal-Arroyo. No right of the accused is being violated in the publication of the mug shot. Prof. Perfecto Fernandez in his book “Mass Media Law” compiled pertinent jurisprudence on the matter, and referred to them as“four principal types of prejudicial publicity which interfere with the right of the accused to a fair trial”; they’re in four categories:  (1) prejudicial material such as publication of previous criminal records, results of lie-detector tests, confessions or witnesses of so-called witnesses not yet admitted by the court, etc. 2) sensationalized reporting; (3)vigilantism by the press; (4) excessive publicity (Fernandez, Mass Media Law). Publication of the mug shot of the accused, obviously, does not fall under any of these: there is no sensationalism because it is not exaggerated or manipulated, it is not gory, graphic, or shocking; there is no vigilantism because there are no statements or implication of guilt of the accused here; there is no excessive publicity because it is the first time we are seeing the photos and they deserve front-page treatment because of the newsworthiness of the case; and there is no prejudicial material here because these are mere attachments in the mittimus (file) of the case already classified as public records.  It is not the right of the accused that is at issue here but the caprice of her team to make sure that there is no historical record available to the public of the arrest of the accused. As to “humiliation” involved — geez,  we are so way past that after the airport spectacle which the then respondent caused upon herself. (She is in good company — look at Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton)

Neither are the mug shots a matter of security of the state. Since when were mug shots ever classified as “Top Secret”, “For Your Eyes Only”, “Strictly Confidential”? Show me a law that says that the publication of the mug shot of the accused is a matter of public safety that cannot be done without clearance of the court. On the other hand, the order of the court — to the public in general! — not to print, publish, show, the mug shot of the accused is tantamount to saying, do not look at the face of the accused when she was photographed for booking — an order that runs into constitutional issues far greater than the right to travel. I’ll be darned if you’re going to punish the press for performing its role in informing the public of the developments in this case. Are you about to cite the Inquirer in contempt for  performing its public duty? And what about the other media organizations and news sites that showed the mug shot as published by the Inquirer — TV shows such as the always-provocative Dos por Dos of Anthony Taberna and Jerry Baja of ABS-CBN DZMM where i first saw these photos? Are you about to punish for contempt Gani Yambot, Mike Enriquez (who showed the Inquirer photos, too), Felipe Gozon, Charo Santos, Gabby Lopez, and a host of internet site users? There are not enough jails for all the editors, news directors, section editors, publishers, news site producers, bloggers, layout artists, caption-writers, of this country to be detained in. A legion of lawyers, media alliances, people’s organizations,  will descend upon you like angels on a rampage — don’t mess with the freedom-of-the-press- free-speech-clause and right-of access clause. There is no constitutional right for a public figure to look good at all times. No accused anywhere in the world can claim constitutional guarantee to  mellow lighting during mugshot-taking — ask Lindsay Lohan.  

Tags: electoral sabotage, free speech, freedom of the press, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Gloria's mug shots, media law, mug shots, People vs. Arroyo, People vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, right of access

• ndUTCp30UTC11bUTCTue, 22 Nov 2011 06:25:51 +0000 28, 2007
• constitutional law, Criminal law, Election law & election campaigns, Film paintings photos, Rules of Court, The News Media
• 3 comments