Friends Behind Ronnie Puno Infomercials

Among speculations about presidency officers using public funds to execute early campaigning for the May 2010 Elections, a barrister has called on public officers who air infomercials to disclose their source of funds.
lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr. Announced that'It isn't enough if it is their money. First, they should tell where the funds came from. If these are donations from advocates or mates, they should divulge where these came from.'
-oOo-
In the interest of transparency, those paying for the infomercials of central authority officers should actually identify themselves.
They should follow the lead of groups like'Friends of Ronnie' ( FOR ), an organisation comprising adherents of the interior and Local regime Secretary Ronnie Puno, who have come out-in the interest of transparency-to say that they were those who produced the office of the Interior and Local presidency ( DILG ) infomercials and paid for their TV placements.
-oOo-
FOR members announced they needed to show the programs of the DILG, through the Philippine National Police ( PNP ), in establishing ladies and youngsters Protection Desks in every police station, and in hiring at least three thousand new policemen and policewomen annually.
During their August launching, FOR officers and members declared in a press statement that they support Secretary Puno's advocacy in'empowering local government units and developing a new sort of law enforcers and public safety officers in the DILG.'
As pointed out in their press statement, FOR members simply asked Secretary Puno to appear in the series of infomercials as DILG secretary.
-oOo-
Neither FOR nor Puno is guilty of using regime funds and of early campaigning through the DILG's series of infomercials highlighting the Dept's accomplishments, for the FOR members used their own money to pay for the TV adverts.
Legal eagles said that Secretary Puno can't be held liable for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act 3019, or for disregarding the code of conduct and Ethical Standards for Public officers, which prohibits public officials from accepting gifts, as the infomercials cannot be thought about as gifts given by FOR to the DILG secretary.
-oOo-
A survey of jurisprudence shows that violations of Sec. 7 ( d ) of the code of conduct often occur where a public official solicits or accepts a present which is given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor from asserted public official or worker. This is clearly not correct re Secretary Puno and FOR.
The TV ads couldn't be classified as a'gift' given to Puno because the secretary did not benefit from the TV advertisements.
in reality, the rank-and-file of the PNP are the ones benefitting from the infomercial because of the powerful positive image of policemen and policewomen that are being projected in the ads.
Even the public are benefitting from the ads because they are thru the infomercials, being told about the PNP services that they now enjoy or can avail of.
-oOo-
as far as the Omnibus Election Code is concerned , did Secretary Puno violate any law?
No. He didn't violate the Omnibus Election Code because the essential elements are absent in his case like : one. ) someone engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity ; two. ) the act is intended to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate and ; 3. ) the act is done outside of the campaign period.
-oOo-
DILG's infomercials are not an'election campaign' or'partisan political activity'. They inform the public of the department's programs and accomplishments. They don't pitch the election or defeat of an applicant because the contents of the TV infomercials don't deal with the 2010 elections.
Secretary Puno, in addition, is not a'candidate.' Under Section 79 ( a ), an applicant is the person who'has filed a certificate of candidacy to an elective public office.'.