Lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr. has suggested the public officials to reveal their source of funds used in infomercials. This is to clarify issues of premature campaigning done by some aspiring candidates for the 2010 elections. Atty. Francisco has stated that government officials’ moneys, clearly, aren’t enough to fund those expensive infomercials. These aspiring candidates should divulge the people who help financing those TV advertisements.
In fairness with those who finance the infomercials, they should also come out in the open and announce that they are the ones who are paying for those advertisements. This is to point out clarity on campaign fund issues. These people who spend money in supporting a certain official should follow the front of groups like Friends of Ronnie (FOR). FOR is an alliance involving supporters of Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Ronnie Puno who have revealed their selves before the public, for the sake of clearness, to claim that they are the ones who aid those TV advertisements financially.
The FOR have said that they wanted to point out the programs of DILG such as the institution of Women and Children Protection Desks in every police station and the employment of at least 3,000 new polices every year by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The FOR members have also declared their support for Puno’s advocacy in “empowering local government units and developing a new breed of law enforcers and public safety officers in the DILG.” The only thing that the FOR members have requested for Sec. Puno is to appear in the infomercials as the DILG secretary.
Both FOR and Puno are not at fault of using government funds and premature campaigning with the DILG infomercials because those advertisements were actually paid by FOR. Legal counsels even said that Sec. Puno isn’t liable for any violation such as the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act (Republic Act 3019) or even the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, which disallows public officials to receive gifts, because those infomercials aren’t even regarded as gifts.
Violation of Section 7 of the Code of Conduct for public officials happens when an officials implores or accepts gifts that are given in expectation of a return favour. First, the infomercials can’t be identified as gifts because Sec. Puno isn’t benefiting from the advertisements and the FOR aren’t even asking for a return favour. If there’s one group of people who benefits a lot from the DILG series of infomercials, it would be the PNP because those infomercials showcase positive feature of their projects. More importantly, those infomercials were made to benefit the public viewers of awareness to these PNP services.
So let me ask one question, did Sec. Puno or the FOR group breach such law of ethics? I don’t think so.
Some of the factors considered before suggesting a violation of the Omnibus Election Code are the following: 1) a person engages in an election campaign; 2) the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate and; 3) the act is done outside the campaign period.
So did Sec. Puno and FOR commit any violation? No, they didn’t. First, those DILG infomercials aren’t made for the election campaign. They serve the purpose of informing the public about the programs of the DILG. The infomercials aren’t made to promote election because, in the first place, they don’t even have anything to do with the 2010 elections more so to defeat a candidate. Well, Sec. Puno can’t be considered a candidate since he hasn’t filed his certificate of candidacy to become a possible public official.
In fairness with those who finance the infomercials, they should also come out in the open and announce that they are the ones who are paying for those advertisements. This is to point out clarity on campaign fund issues. These people who spend money in supporting a certain official should follow the front of groups like Friends of Ronnie (FOR). FOR is an alliance involving supporters of Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Ronnie Puno who have revealed their selves before the public, for the sake of clearness, to claim that they are the ones who aid those TV advertisements financially.
The FOR have said that they wanted to point out the programs of DILG such as the institution of Women and Children Protection Desks in every police station and the employment of at least 3,000 new polices every year by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The FOR members have also declared their support for Puno’s advocacy in “empowering local government units and developing a new breed of law enforcers and public safety officers in the DILG.” The only thing that the FOR members have requested for Sec. Puno is to appear in the infomercials as the DILG secretary.
Both FOR and Puno are not at fault of using government funds and premature campaigning with the DILG infomercials because those advertisements were actually paid by FOR. Legal counsels even said that Sec. Puno isn’t liable for any violation such as the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act (Republic Act 3019) or even the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, which disallows public officials to receive gifts, because those infomercials aren’t even regarded as gifts.
Violation of Section 7 of the Code of Conduct for public officials happens when an officials implores or accepts gifts that are given in expectation of a return favour. First, the infomercials can’t be identified as gifts because Sec. Puno isn’t benefiting from the advertisements and the FOR aren’t even asking for a return favour. If there’s one group of people who benefits a lot from the DILG series of infomercials, it would be the PNP because those infomercials showcase positive feature of their projects. More importantly, those infomercials were made to benefit the public viewers of awareness to these PNP services.
So let me ask one question, did Sec. Puno or the FOR group breach such law of ethics? I don’t think so.
Some of the factors considered before suggesting a violation of the Omnibus Election Code are the following: 1) a person engages in an election campaign; 2) the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate and; 3) the act is done outside the campaign period.
So did Sec. Puno and FOR commit any violation? No, they didn’t. First, those DILG infomercials aren’t made for the election campaign. They serve the purpose of informing the public about the programs of the DILG. The infomercials aren’t made to promote election because, in the first place, they don’t even have anything to do with the 2010 elections more so to defeat a candidate. Well, Sec. Puno can’t be considered a candidate since he hasn’t filed his certificate of candidacy to become a possible public official.
