It's not just a question of commercial feasibility. Media groups meeting to ponder their next moves after the landmark Supreme Court victory on live coverage of the Ampatuan massacre trial warned that an overly strict interpretation of the high court's rules could actually penalize the public's right to know.

The SC decision orders that once permission is granted for live coverage, media groups should cover the entire proceeding until promulgation, without any breaks except those ordered by the trial judge. Violation of the rule could strip a news organization of its permit.

But journalists pointed out the draconian aspect of this rule, which could curtail media's obligation to inform the public of other important events. Court cases in the Philippines, especially those involving powerful and rich individuals can take over a decade to complete. For example, the recent Sandiganbayan decision finding officials of the military-owned RSBS guilty of graft came 14 years after charges were filed.

"The prohibition against any breaks in the live coverage could unduly affect the public rights to be informed of urgent breaking news," said Inday Espina-Varona of Bayan Mo iPatrol Mo, representing ABS-CBN. "The Ampatuan massacre trial is important. but it is not the only important event affecting the nation. Media should not be punished for upholding its responsibility to the public."

Malou Mangahas, executive director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, said there is need to balance the highest traditions of independent media with the Court's concern for coverage not to impair judicial decision.

She also stressed that media need to press for conditions that will allow them "to render the story well with background, context and clarity" as this would uphold public interest.

"The worst scenario is that we are there as 'passive documentors', with no heart, no mind," Mangahas said.

Representatives of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP) underscored production problems, especially with radio, which would have to contend with a lot of dead air. Other media companies noted that the SC decision would force them to reserve -- for years on end -- a formidable amount of resources, personnel and airtime."

But these problems are not insurmountable, according to Romeo Capulo, head of the Public Interest Law Center, which representative of the National Union  of Journalists of the Philippines and other media groups in the legal fight. "It is a good beginning. We have platforms on which to expand on what the Supreme Court has given us."

The NUJP said it would give weight to Capulong's advice to explore all avenues before asking leave to file a clarificatory motion. Media groups will be meeting again to come up with list of concerns to take up with the Supreme Court, even as they expect the lawyers of the Ampatuan clan and other accused to file a motion for reconsideration.
 
Former UP College of Mass Communication Dean Luis Teodoro agreed with Capulong. He said the regional trial court could be asked to provide a viewing room so broadcasters can report without disrupting legal proceedings. Mangahas also raised the possibility of web streaming.

"The main thing is to get around restrictions," Teodoro said. "We'll find a way to have that condition (non-stop live coverage) revised or modified."

NUJP Secretary-General Rowena Carranza-Paraan said there is belief in the goodwill of the Supreme Court. "Let us work together to educate the public and the Court of the rules which could actually be inimical to the public good," she said.

Capulong also said numerous legal precedents indicate that when rules lead to blatant absurdities parties involved should not stick to "strict interpretation."

While worried over the challenges, media groups say they will fly the banner of victory and push the limits in the cause of press freedom and the public's right to know.