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

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

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

 

 

 

Voting for Integrity: Will candidates honor Pledge?

TODAY starts a week-long job-application and registration process for those who aspire to lead the nation.

The applicants have only until Friday, Oct. 16, to file their certificates of candidacy with the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

In all, 18,069 positions will have to be filled up.

Decision day is eight months away on May 9, 2016.

By their votes, registered Filipino voters – last counted at 53,786,223 by the last balloting in October 2013 – will have to employ:

* A president
* A vice president
* 12 senators
* 58 party-list representatives
* 235 district representatives
* 81 governors
* 81 vice governors
* 772 provincial board councilors
* 144 city mayors
* 144 city vice mayors
* 1,610 city councilors
* 1,490 municipal mayors
* 1,490 municipal vice mayors
* 11,924 municipal councilors
* A governor for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
* A vice governor for ARMM
24 ARMM assemblymen.

It is fortuitous that the Comelec has helped ease the decision-making process for voters. In a landmark move, the poll body has decided to require all candidates to sign on to an “Integrity Pledge.”

A veritable terms of employment, the Pledge at the very least serves voters a reference for the expected, dutiful, and lawful conduct that all candidates must swear to and live by.

Will they keep true to the Pledge? The voters will know best when hiring time comes.

The full text of the Integrity Pledge follows:

INTEGRITY PLEDGE

I sign this Integrity Pledge for free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, and through my words and actions, commit to abide by the tenets of our Constitution, election laws, rules and regulations, respecting the sanctity of our electoral exercise.

I will not employ any form of violence, force, or threat that may impair, impede, or unduly influence the free exercise of the people’s right of suffrage. I will ensure the prompt and accurate, reporting and disclosure of campaign-related expenses.

I will not offer or give bribes or gifts to corrupt the integrity of our democratic process.

As a candidate seeking the people’s mandate in order to serve them, I shall respect the norms of conduct expected of public servants and commit to run a clean campaign, observing fairness, common decency, honesty and good faith.

All these, I commit and subscribe to, freely and voluntarily, fully accountable to Almighty God and to the Filipino people as my witnesses.

Voting for Integrity: Will candidates honor Pledge?

TODAY starts a week-long job-application and registration process for those who aspire to lead the nation.

The applicants have only until Friday, Oct. 16, to file their certificates of candidacy with the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

In all, 18,069 positions will have to be filled up.

Decision day is eight months away on May 9, 2016.

By their votes, registered Filipino voters – last counted at 53,786,223 by the last balloting in October 2013 – will have to employ:

* A president
* A vice president
* 12 senators
* 58 party-list representatives
* 235 district representatives
* 81 governors
* 81 vice governors
* 772 provincial board councilors
* 144 city mayors
* 144 city vice mayors
* 1,610 city councilors
* 1,490 municipal mayors
* 1,490 municipal vice mayors
* 11,924 municipal councilors
* A governor for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
* A vice governor for ARMM
24 ARMM assemblymen.

It is fortuitous that the Comelec has helped ease the decision-making process for voters. In a landmark move, the poll body has decided to require all candidates to sign on to an “Integrity Pledge.”

A veritable terms of employment, the Pledge at the very least serves voters a reference for the expected, dutiful, and lawful conduct that all candidates must swear to and live by.

Will they keep true to the Pledge? The voters will know best when hiring time comes.

The full text of the Integrity Pledge follows:

INTEGRITY PLEDGE

I sign this Integrity Pledge for free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, and through my words and actions, commit to abide by the tenets of our Constitution, election laws, rules and regulations, respecting the sanctity of our electoral exercise.

I will not employ any form of violence, force, or threat that may impair, impede, or unduly influence the free exercise of the people’s right of suffrage. I will ensure the prompt and accurate, reporting and disclosure of campaign-related expenses.

I will not offer or give bribes or gifts to corrupt the integrity of our democratic process.

As a candidate seeking the people’s mandate in order to serve them, I shall respect the norms of conduct expected of public servants and commit to run a clean campaign, observing fairness, common decency, honesty and good faith.

All these, I commit and subscribe to, freely and voluntarily, fully accountable to Almighty God and to the Filipino people as my witnesses.

COA’s Heidi Mendoza nominated UN Usec-General for Oversight

HEIDI MENDOZA of the Philippines’s Commission on Audit has been nominated to a senior position in the United Nations.

In a press advisory released from New York Oct. 5, the UN said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “following consultations with Chairs of Regional Groups, informed the General Assembly of his intention to appoint Heidi Mendoza of the Philippines as the new Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services for a five-year non-renewable term.”

Appointed to the COA in 2011 by President Benigno S. Aquino III, Mendoza is chairperson of the Audit Committee on Public Sector Auditing Standards Board, and External Auditor for the Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health Organization and International Labour Organization.

A certified public accountant, Mendoza has over 20 years of service in government particularly in the field of audit, investigation, fraud examination, anti-corruption and integrity advocacy.