Senators say only rich candidates will benefit from ‘no-airtime-limits ruling’
More News from Maila Ager
MANILA, Philippines—Senators expressed fears on Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s decision to stop the implementation of airtime limits on political advertisements on television and radio would be advantageous only to rich candidates.
“Bad news. Lamang na naman ang may maraming pera (The candidates who have more money have the edge),” re-electionist Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III said in a text message.
Another re-electionist senator, Francis “Chiz” Escudero, aired the same sentiment though he acknowledged that removing the air limits would give additional income for n smaller TV and radio stations.
“This will definitely be a boost, revenue wise, for the smaller TV and radio stations during this campaign season. However, this ruling will definitely also give an advantage and boost to the richer candidates who can more easily place more ads compared to candidates with less money like us,” Escudero said in a separate text message.
Both Pimentel and Escudero are running under Team PNoy.
But for Senator Gringo Honasan, who is running under the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA), the decision had no effect on him.
“It doesn’t affect us because if you notice, wala naman akong TV ads aside from the UNA, yung common TV ad namin na itinigil na. So walang epekto sa amin yon,” Honasan said in a phone interview.
After all, he said, the cap on airtime has not been effectively enforced.
Honasan, also chairman of the Senate committee on public information, agreed though that lifting the airtime limits would be favorable to only few rich candidates.
“Obviously. Dahil kung taasan mo ang threshold, ibig sabihin niya ay ang makakalamang ‘yung may pambayad (Because of you raise the threshold, that means the ones who will have an edge are those with money),” he said responding to a question.
“Pero ayaw ko namang palabasin na naiinggit tayo or nagrereklamo. Pero dinisisyunan ng Korte Suprema yan (But I don’t want to make it appear as if I’m envious or complaining. The Supreme Court has already decided on that). As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t affect us because nagiipon pa kami ng pambayad sa (we’re saving up to pay for) infomercial namin sa TV ad,” he added.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94