Who paid for Kaakbay pol ads?

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism stands by a series of stories it published on the television campaign ads aired for the benefit of several party-list groups that ran in the May 10 elections.

Earlier, party-list group Kaakbay said the PCIJ erred when it ran the series in April and May. Kaakbay party-list president Alain Del Bustamante Pascua said the PCIJ stories implied that party-list groups that had television ads were not really marginalized.

One of the Kaakbay ads in question

The ad’s end tag, stating the ad was “paid by” Kaakbay

Pascua said Kaakbay could not afford to buy its own TV ads, and admitted that the ads were paid for by “common supporters and sponsors of both Kaakbay and our partner national candidates, specifically Presidential Candidate Noynoy Aquino and Vice Presidential Candidate Mar Roxas, and with Senatorial Candidate Juan Ponce Enrile.”

But PCIJ Executive Director Malou Mangahas pointed out that the end tags of these ads precisely stated that the ads were “paid for” and “paid by” Kaakbay party-list group.

“According to the implementing rules and regulations of the Fair Election Practices Act (Comelec Resolution No. 8758), the “paid for” and “paid by” clauses in the ad clips should establish in truth the beneficiary and paying client of the same ads,” Mangahas said. “Whatever internal arrangements Kaakbay had with candidates Aquino, Roxas and Enrile should have been documented in some way, according to election laws.”

“If Kaakbay and these candidates shared resources to pay for these ads, then that should have been reflected in the respective statements of election contributions and expenditure (SECEs) that these candidates had submitted to the Comelec,” Mangahas added. “Otherwise, it would seem like there could have been material discrepancies in the SECEs of these candidates.”

Here is Mangahas’ full reply:

Thank you very much for your statement and email.

The PCIJ is posting it on our blog site.

However, let me assure you that we precisely checked the ad clips and verified that the end tags of these ads precisely stated that the ads were “paid for” and “paid by” Kaakbay party-list group. The same situation applied to all the other party-list groups cited in the PCIJ story.

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) Comelec had ruled that these end tags are what will be considered to establish who or which party should be credited with the airtime and spending limits under the Fair Election Practices Act.

According to the implementing rules and regulations of the Fair Election Practices Act (Comelec Resolution No. 8758), the “paid for” and “paid by” clauses in the ad clips should establish in truth the beneficiary and paying client of the same ads. The Comelec also said that the “paid by” data in the ad clips should be the same details reflected in the ad contracts. We have secured copies of the advertising contracts as well as the actual ad clips that had been aired.

Whatever internal arrangements Kaakbay had with candidates Aquino. Roxas and Enrile should have been documented in some way, according to election laws.

The law states that a candidate or party like Kaakbay should have first authorized the same candidates to air ads on its behalf. There should have been a certificate of donation to Kaakbay of funds or ads by the three candidates or their respective authorized representatives and subsequent certification by Kaakbay’s treasurer or president allowing the three candidates to donate, incur expenditure and air ads on behalf of Kaakbay.

If Kaakbay and these candidates shared resources to pay for these ads, then that should have been reflected in the respective statements of election contributions and expenses (SECEs) that these candidates had submitted to the Comelec. Otherwise, it would seem like there could have been material discrepancies in the SECEs of these candidates.

Thanks and best regards.
Malou