Category: Data Journalism

A pandemic of TV ads: How, where, when 4 wannabe presidents did it

mcmangahas

ALMOST LIKE A PLAGUE, the political ads of four candidates for president, five for vice president, and two dozen other candidates for senator and local posts have started to assault our TV screens starting March 2015, or 14 months ahead of the May 9, 2016 elections.

All together worth P6.7 billion, by media’s published rate cards, these pre-campaign ads have turned this year’s balloting into the priciest ever in the country’s electoral history.

Who paid for the ads? The candidates have variably said that their unnamed donors, and/or portions of their own money, covered the expense.
But why ever must donors part with their millions when only the candidates stand to gain from political ads? And how, some citizens have asked, should the candidates pay back these donors who gave them not just money but also a quick ride to instant celebrity and fame on TV?

By Nielsen Media’s monitoring reports, overkill is an understatement. It does not suffice to describe the stupendously rich pre-campaign ad spend of four candidates for president — Jejomar Binay of the United Nationalist Alliance; Rodrigo Duterte of PDP-Laban; Grace Poe of the Galing at Puso slate; and Manuel ‘Mar’ Roxas II of the Liberal Party.

Specific to the last detail, Nielsen Media’s reports enroll the day, date, and time, and in which TV programs the ads aired; their rate card cost at the time of broadcast; and which versions of the candidates’ ad materials ran.

So the people may know, PCIJ has decided to reveal the full details of Nielsen Media’s reports on the TV ads that featured four candidates for president as “advertiser” and “product” from March 2015 to January 2016.

2 firms paid pol ads, defy SEC ruling vs. partisanship

mcmangahas

By the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

TWO COMPANIES have done what they shouldn’t and couldn’t have.

First, they separately paid for political ads for and against two candidates in the May 2016 elections. They should not have done that. According to a ruling of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), no corporate entity, Filipino or foreign, should donate money to the candidates or to any partisan political activity.

But then both companies could not have done it. There is little to show in their latest financial statements that they could. Both companies, as of their 2014 filing with the SEC, appear to be in the red, with little or no operation at all.

The first firm, AB Ison Pilot Trading & Construction Corp., is listed in the Nielsen Media monitoring reports to be the “advertiser” of a total of P8,835,162 worth of pre-campaign political ads, by published media rate cards, that aired on national television in January 2016.

These 21 ad spots criticized Vice President Jejomar Binay, candidate for president of the United Nationalist Alliance or UNA, for his failure to explain his supposedly numerous bank accounts and the allegedly overpriced contracts that the City of Makati had awarded during his stint as mayor.

The second firm, Patriot Freedom Air, Inc., was listed as the “payor” in three advertising contracts signed with ABS-CBN network in February 2016 for the benefit of independent candidate for senator Francis Tolentino, former chairman of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority or MMDA.

The three ad contracts that ABS-CBN submitted to the Commission on Elections listed Patriot Freedom Air as payor or “advertiser” of the ads worth a total of P12,567,772.

This amount consisted of:

  • P964,873, for twenty 30-second ad spots for Tolentino that aired from Feb. 9 to 29 on ABS-CBN’s regional TV stations in Baguio, Lipa in Batangas, Cebu, Davao, General Santos, Iloilo, and Naga City.
  • P9,971,628 for twelve 30-second ad spots for Tolentino that aired between Feb. 9 and 29 on “TV Patrol” and the prime-time teleserye “FPJ’s Ang Probinsyano” and “Dolce Amore”, and the variety show “Pilipinas Got Talent”; and
  • P1,631,271 for three 30-second ads for Tolentino that aired on ABS-CBN’s Sunday variety program “Showtime” last Feb. 13, 20, and 27, with each spot valued at P543,907,000.

Firms may not donate

SEC Opinion No. 15-08 issued on July 27, 2015, says that it is taboo for all companies to donate any amounts to candidates and political parties.

Signed by Camilo S. Correa, SEC general counsel, “by authority of the Commission En Banc,” the ruling states, “Section 36(9) of the Corporation Code imposes an absolute prohibition for corporations, both foreign and domestic, from giving any donations to any political party, candidate, or for the purpose of any partisan political activity.” (underscoring supplied in SEC Opinion No. 15-08)

In Section 144, the Corporation Code or Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 says that “violations of any of the provisions of this Code or its amendments not otherwise specifically penalized therein shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand pesos but not more than ten thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for not less than 30 days but nor more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court.”

The same section of the Code, however, says, “If the violation is committed by a corporation, the same may, after notice and hearing, be dissolved in appropriate proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

Ex-Makati employee

AB Ison registered with the SEC on Sept. 27, 1977, and listed its office address at 7029 Wilson St. Pio Del Pilar, Makati City.

SEC records showed that as of Aug. 31, 1998, six names are listed as incorporators, with Pedro Ison serving as treasurer. According to SEC papers, Cynthia Ison holds the designation of corporate secretary, but is not among the incorporators who include, apart from Pedro Ison:

  • Luis R. Ignacio of Gapan, Nueva Ecija;
  • Jacinto S. Navarro of Guagua, Pampanga;
  • Lorenzo R. Rapanan of Villasis, Pangasinan;
  • Enrique C. Rivera of Cablao, Nueva Ecija; and
  • Arturo R. Rivada of 3776 Gen. Mascardo, Makati City

In addition, Arthur Ison, Michael Gonzales, Fernando Ablaza, and Amalia Gonzales, were listed as subscribers owning varying amount of company stocks.

In its 2013 Statement of Financial Position, AB Ison declared having a total of P11,112,485 worth of current assets, including P 2.5 million in cash and cash equivalents. It also reported non-current assets composed of property and equipment and reserves of P25,229,344, bringing the firm’s total assets to more than P36 million.

Still, AB Ison’s cash position is just a fourth of the P8.84-million value of the pre-campaign political ad spots against Binay that the company acquired in January 2016.

The amount it splurged on its political ads against Binay is twice to thrice more than its P3.466,800 net profit from operation in 2013, and P2,8982,319 in 2012, according to AB Ison’s records at the SEC.

MMDA contractor

For three weeks now, PCIJ has tried to reach AB Ison President Arthur Ison by phone and letter for comment, but he has yet to respond as of press time. His secretary said Ison’s “busy schedule” was the reason why he could not respond to PCIJ’s request.

PCIJ research meanwhile reveals that AB Ison, through Arthur Ison, has been engaged since 2012 in a private-public partnership project with the MMDA for the cleaning of esteros in Metro Manila. San Miguel Brewery Corp. and RM Gomez Construction were also involved in this project that was supposed to be a step toward making Metro Manila “climate-resilient.”

Photos of the Memorandum of Agreement signing between AB Ison President Arthur B. Ison and then MMDA Chair Francis Tolentino seemed to be unavailable from the MMDA website despite the presence of a webpage for the event, but PCIJ managed to get the photo below after scraping uploaded MMDA references.

The Department of Labor and Employment had also listed AB Ison in 2012 as one of its accredited contractors and subcontractors in the National Capital Region.

AB Ison may have also had other projects, based on the claims of a certain Marianne Joy Machitar in her LinkedIn account. According to Machitar’s LinkedIn profile, she worked for AB Ison from November 2009 to September 2011 as Project Engineer/Safety Officer, and that she “handled projects of well-known clients in the Philippines like Rockwell Land Corporation, Vista Land Corporation, Picar Holdings Inc. and Ayala Land Inc.” during her stint in the firm.

Machitar worked for DPWH Surigao del Sur for two years and eight months after leaving AB Ison, according to her LinkedIn profile.

Worked under Binay

Interestingly, the archives of the Makati City government’s website show that Arthur Ison’s father and the firm’s founding president, Pedro Ison, had served as the municipal secretary of Makati for more than 26 years, even before Makati was declared separate from Rizal province.

A municipal resolution extended Ison’s term as municipal secretary despite reaching the forced retirement age of 65, supposedly because his service was still needed “especially during the period when the Local Government Code is to take effect on January 1992.”

Makati’s vice mayor at the time, Augusto V. Pangan served as temporary presiding officer, because Makati’s then mayor, Jejomar Binay, was not present at the gathering. The same resolution in favor of Pedro Ison also urged the city council to “make strong representations with the Civil Service Commission” so that Ison’s term would be extended for six more months.

The Makati City portal listed Pedro Ison as one of the “prominent residents” of Pio del Pilar, Makati City.

Zero revenue

As for Patriot Freedom Air, the receipts that ABS-CBN issued for the ad contracts worth nearly P12.6 million listed the company’s taxpayer identification number to be 008-850-909 and address at 502 Greenhills Mansion, Annapolis Street, San Juan City.

Tolentino; Rizalina Hombre, media director of his ad placement agency, AdmediaEdge; and Jaewoo Chung, president of Patriot Freedom Air, signed the documents covering the ad buys.

PCIJ checked out the firm’s records at the Securities and Exchange Commission or SEC and found no evidence at all that it could afford to finance the former MMDA chief’s political ads.

Patriot Freedom is a stock corporation that registered with the SEC only on Sept. 1, 2014 and is said to be engaged in “tourist assistance activities.”

Jae Woo Chung is named as president in the company’s papers with the SEC, with his personal address shown to be 502 Greenhills Mansion. The other incorporators and officers of the firm are Angieneth Alma, Alex Ico, Twinkle Joy Sagun (treasurer), and Jean Ella P. Ico (corporate secretary). All five are listed to be Filipinos.

As of 2014, Patriot Freedom’s authorized capital was only P250,000, and its paid-up capital, only P62,500. As of Dec. 31, 2014, it reported to the SEC zero revenues, zero administrative expenses, and thus zero net income.

From its paid-up capital of P62,500, Patriot Freedom ended the year 2014 with only P57,250, on account of a decrease in current assets of P4,950. — With research and reporting by Vino Lucero and Malou Mangahas, PCIJ, March 2016

Pol ads bill vs. net worth in SALN: Top bets in debt, deficit spending?

mcmangahas

By Malou Mangahas, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Last of Three Parts

CAN we trust them with the public purse?

At the rate they are splurging billions of pesos on political ads, with nothing or little to show in their asset records as their own spending capacity, the candidates for president and vice president in the May 2016 elections are possibly the least smart amongst us when it comes to math and money.

In truth, if they have been dipping into their pockets for pesos for their ads, nearly all of them would now be in grave deficit spending status. Or even in the throes of bankruptcy.

Altogether, four of the five seeking the presidency, six seeking the vice presidency, 22 aspiring to be senators, and few dozen local and party-list hopefuls have acquired a record P6.69 billion worth of pre-campaign political ads, mostly on television, and some on radio and the newspapers.

Three wannabe presidents – Manuel ‘Mar’ Roxas II of the Liberal Party (LP), Jejomar ‘Jojo’ Binay of the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA), and Grace Poe of the Galing at Puso (GP) slate — had even made it to the Billion-Peso Club of ad spenders ahead of the official 90-day campaign period that started on Feb. 9, 2016.

According to Nielsen Media’s monitoring reports, as of Jan. 31, 2016 and by the rate card of media agencies, the political ads featuring these three as “advertiser” and “product” had reached the billionth mark: P1,050,065,096 for Binay, P1,016,414,123 for Poe; and P969,173,267 for Roxas.

And while he decided to run only in December 2016, a fourth candidate for president, Rodrigo Duterte of the PDP-Laban Party, had also recorded a bill of P146,351,131 for his pre-campaign ads.

Six wannabe vice presidents, meanwhile, have incurred similarly significant expenses for their solo ads:

  • P419,002,456 for Duterte’s official running mate Alan Peter Cayetano;
  • P273,856,544 for LP’s Maria Leonor ‘Leni’ Robredo;
  • P252,503,856 for Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr.;
  • P29,673,341 for UNA’s Gregorio ‘Gringo’ Honasan II;
  • P8,953,380 for Antonio Trillanes IV; and
  • P2,776,000 for GP’s Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero.

Caps in law, net worth

Even then, they are probably poised to splurge millions of pesos more to get elected. Election laws allow a candidate for national office to spend during the official campaign period up to P10 per voter, or a maximum of P540 million for the nation’s 54.3 million registered voters, to cover all his or her allowable expenses.

But the 2014 statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) of the candidates show no evidence that any of them can finance multi-million-peso campaigns, let alone billion-peso ones. Nearly all of them have little to modest net worth and even the more affluent ones would have gone bankrupt by now if they financed their pre-campaign ads on their own.

For the candidates for president, here’s what their 2014 SALN numbers, compared to their pre-campaign ad expenses, reveal:

  • Roxas declared a net worth of P202,080,453 and cash on hand/in bank of P24,833,667. He incurred pre-campaign ad expenses of P969,173,267. If he spent his own money, he would be on deficit spending by P767,092,814.
  • Binay declared a net worth of P60,250,983 and cash on hand/in bank of P38,843,866. He incurred pre-campaign ad expenses of P1,050,065,096. He would be on deficit spending by P989,804,113.
  • Poe declared a net worth of P89,464,819 and cash on hand/in bank of P1,071,406. She incurred pre-campaign ad expenses of P1,016,414,123. She would be on deficit spending by P926,949,304.
  • Duterte declared a net worth of P21,971,733 and cash on hand/in bank of P13,846,733. He incurred pre-campaign ad expenses of P146,351,131. He would be on deficit spending by P124,379,398.

Wannabe vice

Four of the six candidates for vice president declared much less in net worth, and Marcos, a little more. All together though, they all would be on the path to penury, going by their own expensive ad buys:

  • Robredo declared a net worth of P8,032,124 and cash on hand/in bank of P8,049,124. She incurred pre-campaign ad expenses of P273,856,544. She would be on deficit spending by P265,824,420.
  • Honasan declared a net worth of P21,225,616 and cash on hand/in bank of P11,058,816. He incurred pre-campaign ad expenses of P29,673,341. He would be on deficit spending by P8,447,625.
  • Marcos declared a net worth of P200,598,008 and cash on hand/in bank of P8,000,000. He incurred pre-campaign ad expenses of P252,503,856. He would be on deficit spending by P51,905,848.
  • Cayetano declared a net worth of P23,314,540 and cash on hand/in bank of P8,500,000. He incurred pre-campaign ad expenses of P419,002,456. He would be on deficit spending by P395,687,916.
  • Trillanes declared a net worth of P5,549,000 and cash on hand/in bank of P2,300,000. He incurred pre-campaign ad expenses of P8,953,380. He would on deficit spending by P3,404,380.

By these metrics, only two — Escudero and People’s Reform Party candidate for president Miriam Defensor Santiago — remain in surplus spending status. Escudero had acquired, by Nielsen Media’s data as of Jan. 31, 2016, too few ads; Santiago had not run any pre-campaign ads at all.

Escudero in 2014 declared a net worth of P7,565,029 and cash on hand/in bank of P3,237,947. He incurred pre-campaign ad expenses of P2,776,000. Assuming he used his personal funds, he would be on surplus spending by P4,790,029.

Santiago, meanwhile, declared a net worth of P73,033,539 and cash on hand/in bank of P48,480,291 in her SALN for 2014. — With research and reporting by Vino Lucero, Davinci Maru, and Earl Parreno, PCIJ, March 2016

Inside spin central: The good, the bad, the ugly about pol ads

mcmangahas

By Malou Mangahas, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Second of Three Parts

POLITICAL ADS are a bundle of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

As candidates in the upcoming elections continue to pour considerable amounts of money into political-ad campaigns, officials from state agencies such as the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) have expressed interest – and concern – over where their funds are coming from.

Voters themselves have yet to be asked if they care about where all that money financing the ads is coming from. But surveys conducted by the public opinion polling group PulseAsia Research Inc. indicate that voters welcome even pre-campaign political ads, apparently seeing these as aids in getting to know the candidates ahead of making decisions inside the polling booth.

Voter awareness

Data from surveys conducted from July 2008 to December 2015 by PulseAsia Research Inc. showed a growing acceptance among voters of pre-campaign ads.

Asked “whether or not it is right for a politician who might be a candidate to appear in an advertisement before the official election period,” more and more respondents answered in the positive as the 2016 elections came closer: 48 percent in July 2008; 55 percent in September 2015; and 65 percent in December 2015.

Asked in a December 2015 PulseAsia nationwide survey how much the candidates’ advertisements would help them in their selection of those whom they would vote for in the coming May 2016 elections, 38 percent said the ads “will be very helpful”; another 42 percent said the ads “will be somewhat helpful”; and 15 percent said they were undecided.

Of the respondents who rated ads to be “very helpful” and “somewhat helpful,”38 percent said that through ads, they “get to know the issues or advocacies of the candidates” and 27 percent said that they “get to know the track record, capability or experience of the candidates.”

Truth in advertising?

Unfortunately, unlike claims in commercials for shampoo and toothpaste that could be validated by science or by consumers to be true or false, what candidates say or do in ads seem to deflate the principle of “truth in advertising” that industry practitioners are made to swear by.

One ad industry insider even voices concern that political ads in general mock and deny the citizen’s right to full, fair, and unvarnished information about those who wish to lead the nation and manage the public purse.

According to these political spinmeisters, this year’s elections have turned into a buyer’s market where money talks to mute or muffle “truth in advertising” and in its stead, give way to “political branding for the win.”

“It’s paid media, paid service, mercenary service,” a senior PR agent tells PCIJ.

“To us,” the agent adds, “they are products, not people. The goal is to sell, to secure winnability. You want me, you pay me, pera-pera lang ito (this is just about money).”

In truth, elections are hugely lucrative for media agents, PRs, and creative teams that candidates contract and deploy for overt and covert operations across print, broadcast, and online platforms, or across traditional and social media.

No SRP, no SPG

Still, there are those who express unease in putting candidates in the best possible light – while leaving voters unaware of potential dangers. Says an old PR industry hand: “Politicians are not just soap or shampoo. They are not ordinary products. The lives of people are at stake here.”

One ad agent also notes that unlike any other products, candidates do not come with an SRP (suggested retail price) notice, or an FDA (Food and Drugs Administration) stamp of approval, or even an SPG (Striktong Patnubay at Gabay ng Magulang) alert. They don’t even come with a warning from the surgeon general that they could be bad for health and kill, literally and figuratively, says the agent.

Still another ad industry insider worries that by their product expiry date on poll day, a “no return, no exchange” policy applies to these candidates should they get voted.

Yet still, the war for votes must be won on two fronts: from the air and from the ground, according to veteran political strategists who have seen action in past elections.

This is especially true for candidates for national office who must have — more than just oodles of cash — the right message and image to communicate well, and thus sell, to voters, on television, radio, print, and online media, and at the hustings.

A free-for-all game

One senior ad and PR industry hand even remarks, “During election season, you bend the rules. If you stick to the rules, you will get nowhere.”

The political campaign veteran also says there are almost “no limits” on how far one should bend the rules, “even for special operations.” It is, says the source, “a free-for-all game.”

Social media, which many PRs consider to be a buzz trigger, did not figure as yet as a major platform for courting votes in the 2013 elections. These days, though, the latest social media metrics place the number of Filipinos with access to the Internet at a low of 42 million and a high of 48 million, enticing many national candidates to now mount pitch battles online.

Some candidates who are the most engaged in social media have also hired “under the line” social media teams to stage troll, “astroturf,” and “black hat” operations on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, the insiders say.

“Astroturf” refers to “creating the impression of public support by paying people in the public to pretend to be supportive,” according to the Urban Dictionary. “The false support can take the form of letters to the editor, postings on message boards in response to criticism, and writing to politicians in support of the cause.”

As for “black hat” operations, computer programmer and software freedom activist Richard Matthew Stallman, often known by his initials rms, has been credited for coining the phrase, which refers to the “malicious hacking of secure networks to destroy, modify, or steal data; or to make the network unusable for those who are authorized to use the network.” — PCIJ, March 2016

 

 

 

Pre-campaign ads hit P6.7B: Bribery, tax evasion, impunity?

mcmangahas

By Malou Mangahas, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

First of Three Parts

TO THE LAST, they sing the same song: They hate corruption. They love the poor. They mean well. They are true. They are good. They are pure.

Or at least that is what they say or claim in their political ads.

For at least four of the five candidates for president, five for vice president, 22 for senator, six party-list groups, and 17 candidates for local positions, trying to get themselves elected has meant spending like crazy on political ads.

According to Nielsen Media’s monitoring reports – to which PCIJ has subscribed – a total of 108,573 “social concerns” ads worth P7.75 billion, by the media agencies’ rate cards, were aired and published from Jan. 1, 2015 to Jan. 31, 2016.

Of this, about 105,000 ads valued at P6.7 billion or 86.4 percent featured apparent candidates in the May 2016 elections as “advertiser” or “product” from March 2015 to January 2016.

Campaign proper: P373M

And barely a month has lapsed since the official campaign period started last February 9 but at least 15 candidates for national posts have already acquired more than a third of a billion pesos worth of ads — or P373 million — from leading television network ABS-CBN alone, according to advertising contracts submitted to the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

Seven of the 15 candidates come from the apparently richly funded Liberal Party of President Benigno S. Aquino III. These early birds in the pol ads war include three candidates for president, three for vice president, and nine others for senator.

Yet while candidates in the May 2016 polls may get free pass from still porous election laws for their pre-campaign ads, they may have a hard time escaping from the legal and administrative liabilities that they and their donors may face, by the text and letter of anti-graft, civil service, and tax laws.

Who funded pol ads?

By reason and logic, the billions of pesos they have spent on pre-campaign ads could have come only from three sources: their own money, their yet unnamed donors, or public funds and purses.

By the data enrolled in their 2014 or latest SALN filing, many of the candidates who had already run up millions of pesos in ad bills before Feb. 9 have neither sufficient net worth nor cash on hand or in bank to be able to finance their pre-campaign ads.

Laws do not sleep or lie in wait during election campaigns, and in the view of four regulatory agencies – the Commission on Elections, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Office of the Ombudsman – these candidates and their donors have some serious explaining to do.

Anti-graft laws prohibit all public officials from receiving or accepting gifts of “manifestly excessive” value. Doing so is a possible case of “indirect bribery.” on the part of both the candidate and his/her donor, according to Comelec Commissioner Christian Robert Lim, head of the poll body’s Campaign Finance Office.

Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Jacinto-Henares, meanwhile, told PCIJ she would be keen to find out if those who paid for the candidates’ pre-campaign ads had remitted the 30 percent donor’s tax due from donations from “strangers.”

The SEC, for its part, has issued a legal opinion in July 2015 in which it explicitly banned all corporations, both foreign and domestic, from donating to candidates and political parties, “or for the purpose of any partisan political activity.”

As for the Office of the Ombudsman, its senior officials say they are keen to monitor and review how the candidates have sourced money for their political ads, especially in light of the wealth they have declared in their respective statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth or SALN.

Billion-Peso Club

According to Nielsen Media’s monitoring reports, as of Jan. 31, 2016 and by the rate card of media agencies, three wannabe president comprise the Billion-Peso Club when it comes to pre-campaign political ads:

  • Jejomar Binay of the United Nationalist Alliance, P1,050,065,096;
  • Grace Poe of the Galing at Puso slate, P1,016,414,123; and
  • Manuel ‘Mar’ Roxas II of the Liberal Party, P969,173,267.

And while he decided to run only in December 2016, a fourth candidate for president, Rodrigo Duterte of the PDP-Laban Party, had also recorded a bill of P146,351,131 for his pre-campaign ads.

Six wannabe vice presidents, meanwhile, have incurred similarly significant expenses for their solo pre-campaign ads:

  • P419,002,456 for Alan Peter Cayetano;
  • P273,856,544 for LP’s Maria Leonor ‘Leni’ Robredo;
  • P252,503,856 for Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr.,
  • P29,673,341 for UNA’s Gregorio ‘Gringo’ Honasan II;
  • P8,953,380 for Antonio Trillanes IV; and
  • P2,776,000 for GP’s Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero;

Wannabe senators, too

In the meantime, many wanna-be’s for Senate seats bought millions of pesos of pre-campaign ads as well.

From the richly funded Liberal Party, eight candidates for senator had incurred a combined total of P659,952,074 on pre-campaign political ads, as of Jan. 31, 2016:

  • Joel Villanueva, P168,302,116
  • Leila de Lima, P132,522,526
  • Panfilo ‘Ping’ Lacson, P119,722,666
  • Jericho Icot Petilla, P111,895,689
  • Teofisto Guingona III, P67,957,814
  • Risa Hontiveros, P50,658,681
  • Ralph Recto, P8,892,582
  • Franklin Drilon, P39,000

Fourteen candidates for senator from the other political parties also spent a total of P1.33 billion on pre-campaign ads during the period.

Topping the list is Bongbong Marcos’s cousin, Leyte’s 1st District Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez who acquired twice more ads than the former, P502,392,924, from August 2015 to January 2016. He is serving his third and last term in Congress.

Next to Romualdez’s half-a-billion-peso ad buys are a few more big spenders, and a lot of smaller spenders. They are:

  • Sherwin Gatchalian, P313,614,302
  • Francis Tolentino, P240,130,435
  • Isko Moreno, P207,298,053
  • Neri Colmenares, P22,043,691
  • Serge Osmena, P21,990,027
  • Roman T. Romulo, P14,220,990
  • Rey Langit, P4,780,650
  • Samuel Pagdilao Jr., P1,823,000
  • Walden Bello, P777,467
  • Manny Pacquiao, P582,798
  • Augusto l. Syjuco Jr., P437,650
  • Juan Miguel ‘Migz’ Zubiri, P115,920
  • Susan Ople, P54,000

Too little for BBL

As a group, these candidates for national office accounted for P6.69 billion or 86.38 percent of the P7.75 billion in total “social concerns” ads purchased from TV, radio, and print media agencies, from January 2015 to January 31, 2016.

The remaining balance of P1.05 billion represents ads about “social concerns” by state agencies and the private sector, including a puny P14,747,950 that went to promoting the Bangsamoro Basic Law or BBL (The Aquino administration’s supposedly landmark reform legislation would be finally lost to chronic absenteeism in the House of Representatives and testy debates in the Senate.)

This figure even came from various advertisers, including a joint ad series of the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front worth P6.48 million for the BBL throughout 2015, as well as the local officials and leaders of Sulu, and the Usapang BBL group.

By comparison, the Department of Tourism incurred a total ad spend of P76.83 million in 2015 for its “It’s More Fun in the Philippines” campaign. The amount is 11 times more than the government’s ad spend for BBL last year. – With research and reporting by Vino Lucero, Davinci Maru, and Earl Parreno, PCIJ, March 2016