Coverage of ABS-CBN, Villar deal ignores relevant context

JEERS TO media for failing to include relevant background in reporting the signing of documents by officials of ABS-CBN and ALLTV to seal a business deal. Coverage made no reference to other issues involved, including the potential breach of the law on ethical standards regulating the conduct of public officials.

From April 13 and 24, media (ABS-CBN News, ANC, Daily Tribune, DZRH, Inquirer.net, Malaya Business Insight, Manila Bulletin, Manila Standard, Manila Times, Philippine Star, Philstar.com, and Rappler) reported that ABS-CBN formed a partnership with Advanced Media Broadcasting Systems (AMBS) to air selected programs on AMBS’ broadcast channel, ALLTV. ALLTV is a subsidiary of the Villar Group’s Prime Asset Ventures Inc., headed by Paolo Villar. The deal is the latest of ABS-CBN’s partnerships so local broadcast companies can air their content. Several programs, including ABS-CBN’s primetime newscast “TV Patrol,” would have started airing on ALLTV’s channels April 15, 2024.

The media reports treated it as just another business story, without reference to the political sub-text of the event. ABS-CBN operated Channel 2 until Congress in 2020 decided not to renew ABS-CBN’s 50-year old franchise. The National Telecommunications Commission awarded the frequency to Villar’s AMBS in 2022.

The reports named the officials of the two companies who were present. Former senator and business tycoon Manny Villar and his children, Mark Villar and Camille Villar, represented AMBS at the contract signing. Camille is the Representative of the Lone District of Las Piñas City while Mark is a senator. Their mother, Cynthia Villar, while absent from the event, is also a senator. Reports identified Camille Villar as president and CEO of All Value Holdings and Mark as “Sen. Mark Villar.”

Footage of the event showed Camille Villar giving a speech commending the partnership on behalf of the Villars, further emphasizing her role in the venture. The two Villar siblings posed for photos at the occasion. In general, coverage showed no sense of anything amiss.

Of the many reports, only Inquirer.net’s recalled that Camille Villar voted to deny ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal in the 18th Congress in 2020. Her vote to deny would help gain for her family a media organization. But media reports did not refer at all to the background of political moves against the owners of ABS-CBN, mobilized by then President Rodrigo Duterte and supported by members of Congress.

Congress’ power to grant and revoke legislative franchises to broadcast firms involves conflict-of-interest when members of Congress as public officials are involved as well in the media business. But reports did not include this context in reporting the event.

Journalists should be aware of regulations in place and when these are violated. Republic Act. No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees states that conflict of interest occurs when “a public official or employee is a member of a board, an officer, or a substantial stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a substantial interest in a business, and the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty.”

Media’s failure to refer to this issue suggests that such violations are normal and acceptable. The code prohibits engagement in professional work while serving in Congress.

Indeed, media reports on government affairs rely mostly on official press releases casting their subjects in the best light. Worse, as demonstrated by this case, newsrooms display the lack of awareness of how public officials violate the law. Media should flag the long term impact of any abuse of power. These are officials assigned to legislate for the good of the people. The role of the press as watchdog of power requires journalists to observe the highest standards as they report stories. In this particular instance, reports on the joint partnership served as a puff piece about a business deal, as PR for a family, benefiting both their huge business interests and political ambitions.