Among speculations about govt officers using public funds to execute premature campaigning for the May 2010 Elections, a barrister has called on public officials who air infomercials to divulge their source of funds.
counsel Ernesto Francisco Jr. Announced that'It isn't enough if it is their money. First, they should tell where the funds came from. If these are donations from adherents or mates, they should divulge where these came from.'
-oOo-
In the interest of transparency, those paying for the infomercials of govt officials should really identify themselves.
They should follow the lead of groups like'
Friends of Ronnie' ( FOR ), an organisation comprising adherents of the inside and Local regime Secretary
Ronnie Puno, who have come out-in the interest of transparency-to say that they were the ones who produced the dept of the Interior and Local regime ( DILG ) infomercials and paid for their television placements.
-oOo-
FOR members recounted they needed to show the programs of the DILG, thru the Philippine National Police ( PNP ), in creating girls and children Protection Desks in each police station, and in hiring at least 3,000 new cops and policewomen each year.
During their August launching, FOR officials and members announced in a press statement that they support Secretary Puno's advocacy in'empowering local govt units and developing a new breed of law enforcers and public safety officials in the DILG.'
As indicated in their press statement, FOR members simply asked Secretary Puno to appear in the series of infomercials as DILG secretary.
-oOo-
Neither FOR nor Puno is guilty of using government funds and of premature campaigning thru the DILG's series of infomercials highlighting the Dept's achievements, for the FOR members used their own money to pay for the television adverts.
Legal eagles said that Secretary Puno cannot be held responsible for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act 3019, or for disregarding the code of conduct and Ethical Standards for Public officials, which prohibits public officials from accepting gifts, as the infomercials cannot be thought about as gifts given by FOR to the DILG secretary.
-oOo-
A survey of jurisprudence shows that violations of Sec. Seven ( d ) of the code of conduct often occur where a public official solicits or accepts a present which is given in expectation of, or in exchange for, a favor from recounted public official or employee. This is clearly not right in relation to Secretary Puno and FOR.
The television adverts couldn't be classified as a'gift' given to Puno as the secretary did not benefit from the television advertisements.
In fact, the rank-and-file of the PNP are the ones benefitting from the infomercial because of the robust positive picture of policemen and policewomen that are being projected in the adverts.
Even the public are benefitting from the advertisements because they are through the infomercials, being informed of the PNP services that they now enjoy or can avail of.
-oOo-
as far as the Omnibus Election Code is concerned did Secretary Puno violate any law?
No. He didn't violate the Omnibus Election Code because the essential elements are absent in his case such as : 1. ) a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity ; 2. ) the act is designed to plug the election or defeat of a particular applicant and ; three. ) the act is done outside the campaign period.
-oOo-
DILG's infomercials are not an'election campaign' or'partisan political activity'. They inform the public of the department's programs and feats. They don't promote the election or defeat of a candidate as the contents of the television infomercials do not deal with the 2010 elections.
Secretary Puno, in addition, is not a'candidate.' Under Section 79 ( a ), a candidate is the person who'has filed a certificate of candidacy to an elective public office.'.
