By Atty. Antonio P. Pekas
About two weeks ago, I had a court trial through video conferencing. The court was in Makati City while me and my client were in my office in Baguio City. Our lawyer opponent was in her office in Quezon City.
Compared to earlier experiences where I presented witnesses who were abroad through video conferencing, it was a lot better. One time I was presenting a witness who was in Israel when suddenly we could not hear her. Same thing with another witness in another Asian country, who obviously was able to hear us but we could not hear him. Good thing that when we called him through the phone we could hear him. So the audio was through the phone but the video was on the monitor we brought to court. Then there was that British client who had the temerity to tell the judge hearing our case to do something about the court’s internet signal because he could hardly hear us in England. The judge got piqued: “Bakit kelangan pa niyang la-itin ang Pilipinas?” Good thing we were able to win the case on a technicality so the judge did not have the chance to avenge what she misinterpreted as putting down the country.
Watching Philippine TV channels interviewing people through video conferencing, reveals the same experience. It takes a very long time before the person being interviewed could hear and understand the TV program’s host. Then he would answer which also would take some precious seconds before reaching the TV host, often in an unclear or garbled speech. Again, due to slow or weak internet signal.
Then there is this Baguio judge who does not like talking through video conferencing to suspects who were in jail a few steps away because many times they could not be heard or understood. Sometimes though, the had to make do because the jailbirds could be “super spreaders” of covid. A number of them were tested covid-positive and the virus might still be lurking in their dark and very poorly ventilated cells.
Against this backdrop, let us go back to what I mentioned earlier about our video conferencing experience with the Makati City court. The sounds coming across through our computer in the office were very clear. The faces of the judge and our lawyer opponent were very clear on the monitor. Perhaps my face (with all the warts, scars and other ugly marks) was also very clear to them.
It was like watching CNN when interviewing their reporters in other continents. As if they were located on one spot, in real time. Very clear.
The big difference is that the Makati City Court was in that area where telecommunications companies are making a lot of money from the people and the corporate headquarters there, so they had to be on the top of their game, providing the best digital or electronic signals for phones and internet using gadgets they possibly could. Otherwise, the customers would just transfer their patronage to the competition.
Hopefully, the threat of PDU30 to nationalize the two giant telecoms in this country if they don’t improve their reach or service by the end of this year will have some substantial effect. For the country, is not just the big business districts in Metro Manila like those in Makati, Taguig and Pasig Cities. And the Filipinos are not just those working or residing there.
We, in the hinterlands also need good internet service.**
