Communication technology has gone a long way from the rotary dial telephone my grandparents owned when I was a kid. The rotary dial was later on replaced by the touch dial and then evolved to the cordless phone. Then came the big and bulky cellular phones which, after a huge makeover, became the thin and tiny camera phone we can’t live without today. And, of course, there’s videoconferencing. Videoconferencing probably embodies the ultimate in communication technology – visual and vocal communication that is almost equivalent to physical presence (minus the warm hugs and sweet scent… wtf?).
In the past videoconferencing was mainly utilized for business purposes. Nowadays, however, the Internet has made it cheaper (some would consider free) and more accessible to the public so that the technology now serves personal communication purposes ranging from the innocent to the perverted. Courts have likewise found use for videoconferencing. In the Philippines, for example, presentation of a child witness in family courts can be done via videoconference. This method was setup via a joint effort with the UNICEF having in mind the welfare of the child witness. Allowing the child to testify from another room prevents him from being intimidated or influenced by anyone present in the courtroom and from being traumatized by the experience. Australian courts, on the other hand, broadly use the technology and admit any kind of testimony and certain appearances rendered through it. Certain courts in the state of Maine in the United States use videoconferencing to secure the presence of the accused during arraignment or other court appointed hearings. The use of the technology purportedly reduces delays and transportation costs of the accused from the prison to the courthouse. Perhaps our courts could adopt such similar procedures as well and expand the use of videoconferencing technology to give more meaning and effect to the constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial. Indefinite delays because of the inability of the accused or the witness to appear in court due to physical impossibility (i.e. recuperating in the hospital or out of the country) will be prevented. The long run savings would benefit the government coffers as well (although I doubt that given the present state of corruption in our country). However, presence of the witness or the accused rendered through videoconferencing may face certain legal and practical criticisms.
Our laws give the accused the right to face the witnesses against him and to be present during arraignment. The rules on evidence also provide that the witness should testify in open court. Would videoconferencing violate these rules? The courts may consider presence rendered through videoconference as a substantial compliance with the law as long as the purposes for which such rights exist are served. Basically, the presence of the accused in the courtroom is required to make sure he is informed of the charges against him so that he can, in turn, answer these charges and react to statements made against him promptly. The witness’ presence is required so that he can be cross-examined by the opposing party and observed by the judge to determine whether he is telling the truth or not. Clear and uninterrupted communication through videoconferencing would preserve these purposes.
On the practical side, some may view the installation of videoconferencing equipment in every court as superfluous. Is it really necessary to install them now when most of our citizens can’t even afford to go to court? Some might consider the money better spent on projects that provide indigents with better access to the courts and better legal assistance. It is perhaps difficult to weigh which is more important between the two constitutionally guaranteed right to speedy trial and right to access to the courts. However, should there really be a choice? Is it not possible to fund both? I will do the math. Actual tax collected minus other expenditures minus money allotted to keep politicians in the lap of luxury equals negative balance for installation of videoconferencing equipment in courts. Oh crap! It really is not feasible.
http://www.pia.gov.ph/default.asp?m=12&sec=reader&rp=1&fi=p060523.htm&no=7&date=
http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/news_2007/archive_featurearticle004.html
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/NEWS/704250339/-1/NEWS01
No comments:
Post a Comment