When an outraged nation, in general, and media, in particular, angrily said, “We will never forget” following the cold-blooded massacre of 58 men and women in the town of Ampatuan in Maguindanao on Nov. 23, 2009, we meant every word.

How can we ever forget? This was one wound that time cannot heal. Of the 58 victims, 34 were practicing mediamen. It is for this reason that we at The Manila Times, just like our peers in print, broadcast and electronic media, could never let go of this case.

For us, this is not just another big story. It is a morality tale. It is a case of good vs. evil. It is a moneyed clan using all the resources at their disposal to silence witnesses and even badger relatives of victims to quietly accept financial settlements.

Only when the guilty parties have been sentenced to life imprisonment with no hope for pardon or parole can we rest. This is only because the death sentence remains suspended.

This week, the trial of the suspects – led by the members of the Ampatuan clan – begins. It is a couple of weeks short of the third anniversary of the horrific mass murder.

Slow as the wheels of justice may turn in this country of ours, we are at least able to see that the case is moving forward.

It is, however, unfortunate that the Supreme Court (SC) has blocked media from conducting a live coverage of the trial of the Ampatuans, even as no less than President Benigno Aquino 3rd had voiced his preference for such coverage.

This, after the SC had earlier stated that it would allow live media coverage of the proceedings.

As a form of compromise, the SC has allowed the live streaming of the trial outside the courtroom.

We do not see the wisdom of the SC decision. After all, the trial of impeached SC chief justice Renato Corona was aired live, and the crimes he was accused of were nowhere near as serious as the heinous crime for which the Ampatuans have been charged.

While the high tribunal said it recognized the freedom of the press and the right to public information, the SC also heeded the motion filed by the lawyer of the principal accused, Andal Ampatuan, Jr., that live coverage would deprive him of his rights to due process, equal protection, and presumption of innocence.

In truth, the live streaming allowed by the court will have very little difference to a live broadcast, except that with the latter, viewers can see the faces of the parties involved. The public will be able to see for themselves what kind of men these Ampatuans are, and if they are indeed the monstrous animals that they have been painted out to be by some quarters.

All the accused will still be considered innocent until proven guilty. Thus, allowing a live broadcast of the proceedings instead of a live streaming cannot alter the thinking of the judge who is trying the accused.

This being the case, the SC may want to reconsider its stand.