A screenshot from the TV political campaign advertisement of Sen. Noynoy Aquino
While administration presidential candidate Gibo Teodoro is being accused of violating Intellectual Property Rights, it is of my humble opinion that his second cousin, co-presidential aspirant Noynoy Aquino may have violated R.A. 8491, otherwise known as the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines.
Since I just had my much delayed midterm exam in Criminal Law, I still have a hang-over of memorizing codals and analyzing jurisprudence, so expect a more serious tone, absent of the glitzy-and-glamory showbiz intonation.
The Flag and Heraldic Code was enacted on February 12, 1998. Its purpose is to give respect and reverence to “the flag, the anthem, and other national symbols which embody the national ideals and traditions and which express the principles of sovereignty and national solidarity.” In this respect, heraldic items including the flag, inter alia, shall be accorded with highest respect.
Noynoy Aquino, in his most recent ad, the same ad where he tries to rap and Baby James appears on the last part, made use of the Philippine flag. While rap music was on, a man waved the flag of the Philippines.
The issue is whether or not the waving of the Philippine flag on Noynoy Aquino’s TV advertisement is violative of R.A. No. 8491.
The law is clear on this matter.
According to section 34 paragraph i of R.A. No. 8491, it is prohibited to “use, display or be part of any advertisement or infomercial.”
It is an elementary rule in statutory construction that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget. When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is required [Agpalo, Staturtory Construction (2003) p. 127].
The screenshot above, taken from Noynoy Aquino’s political ad campaign clearly shows that the Philippine flag was used therein. The photo above constitutes a prima facie evidence.
14 Comments
Poor Noynoy. It only shows that he lacks respect for the laws of our country.
kawawa naman si noynoy,hi advsers should be vigilant what appen tokris why did sh lt thi happens?
I was actually trying to research on this, good thing I found your blog. I never once thought of voting for Noynoy because of various reasons but this one takes the cake. Thanks for posting!
Infernez to you, I honestly thought that this was a motu proprio analysis, when I looked up the law, nasa 1st page ka ng google on it! But SEO aside, I think the advantage of attributing TVCs and other campaign efforts to your “friends” make your “friends” liable to the violations. Like for RA 8491, since the penalty is only public censure, while tragic for a presidential candidate, will not be so harsh on the ad agency who used the flag.
But I still frown upon Noynoy’s use of his parental units as a basis for his merits. And yes, I still cringe everytime he raps but my mom can’t get over how cute baby James is, it’s painful.
hmm… this would basically mean that government agencies and the military are in violation of the same law. butch abad isn’t running a very successful campaign for noynoy. masyadong old school mga gimik nya.
It’s really JOLOGS if I might add. So far nga, si Manny Villar ang may pinaka-solid na marketing (issues aside). What do you expect from someone from the College of Business Administration?
look at yourself first…sino naman mukang jologs? di ka naman maganda Miss. At laitin ba ang tinapos ng isang tao. Wish ko lang mas mataas pinag-aralan mo sa kanya. kasi sa comment mo parang wala e. sorry ha.
I postponed commenting on this until I actually saw the commercial, and yes, ganun nga talaga ginawa nya, which is weird considering his patriotic background. And I think that the commercial is already ugly on its own, even if the part where they wave the flag wasn’t added. Napaka-daing ng ad campaign team nya. It looks like a class presentation.
I agree with Celeni that the most well conceptualized and executed campaign is Villar’s. What Noynoy is doing is almost equal to the Boom Tarat-tarat crap that Zubiri did the last time. Might as well kiss his dignified look goodbye with that ad.
oh… he is an anti-Nationalist… he shows “NO” respect even for our flag…
Interesting. Suddenly, everybody’s an expert on media advertising. Google University must be very proud.
This is perhaps why law students are generally not judges.
The Omnibus Election Code, Section 2 states: “This Code shall govern all elections of public officers and, to the extent appropriate, all referenda and plebiscites.”
Sec. 82(d): “All other forms of election propoganda not prohibited by this Code as the Commission may authorize after due notice to all interested parties and hearing where all the interested parties were given an equal opportunity to be heard[.]”
Section 6.4 of RA 9006 directs COMELEC to supervise the use and employment of press, radio and television facilities insofar as the placement of political advertisements is concerned so as to give candidates equal opportunities under equal circumstances to make known their qualifications and stand on public issues.
Another pillar of statutory construction is the old and familiar rule that where there is a particular enactment and also a general one, which, in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment. (United States v. Chase, 135 U. S. 255 (1890)
Then, there is the issue of the statute being used against a political candidate for a content specific purpose in purely political speech. This triggers another pillar of statutory construction that a court must not pass on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress if a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided and the case can be disposed of upon some other ground. Ashwander v. TVA, 297 US 288 (Brandeis concurring)
I am not a fan of Noynoy in any respect, but I’m also not a fan of half-baked legal opinions. One of the biggest hurdles to the rule of law in the Philippines, is its unnecessary politicization — as was done in this blog entry. If you want people to respect the rule of law, it is very important not to foreclose legitimate political discourse. The political process must be respected and purely political speech, such as an ad, is not a proper subject for courts — which is why courts are reluctant to allow claims that are content specific against purely political speech.
Not just Noynoy alone and let this be a lesson 4 those politicians who is against the rules of this country if u done something right then well and good but if u break the law then they need to face their consequences……..
wala naman sa ganda ng ad or commercial yan ng candidates nasa record ganda nga ng ads mo magnanakaw naman. kaya nga expert sila sa magagandang pambobola e para makapagnakaw. at sa panahon ngayon meron pa bang gumagalang sa Phil flag natin pwede ba wag kayang plastik baka kahit national anthem natin di nyo alam sobra kayong makapang-husga.
Well,it seems like Noynoy(the son of the former president and the Philippine democracy icon Cory Aquino)has no respect 4 our country’s national heritage.Sadly I do not expect that the son of the ex-president turned out to be a arrogant boy.Hacienda Luisita issue is another one to consider.