The ‘Thrilla in NAIA’
Tulfo’s brothers Ben, Erwin, and Raffy of T3 were also caught in the controversy
By Bryant L. Macale, PJR Reports May-July 2012
THE SO-CALLED “Thrilla in NAIA” is far from over.
As of press time, the dispute had become a legal one between the camps of broadcaster and columnist Ramon Tulfo and celebrity couple Raymart Santiago and Claudine Barretto. Tulfo and the couple were involved in a scuffle at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 (NAIA 3) last May 6.
Sidebar:
MTRCB functions, powers and duties
What the public wants by Luis V. Teodoro (In Medias Res)
Censorship in disguise by Luis V. Teodoro (In Medias Res)
Tulfo’s brothers Ben, Erwin, and Raffy, hosts of TV5’s public affairs program T3: Kapatid Sagot Kita, were also thrust into the limelight for threatening the celebrity couple in support of their brother last May 7.
The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) suspended for three months the T3: Kapatid Sagot Kita. The suspension started on May 30. The MTRCB also fined the program P100,000 for violating Section 3 (c) of Presidential Decree 1986. After the three-month suspension, the MTRCB will also place the show under probation. Every T3 episode will have to be approved by the MTRCB prior to airing, “until the Board is convinced that the Respondents have implemented self-regulatory measures aimed at preventing future violations.”
The MTRCB had suspended the program following the incident. The preventive suspension was lifted after TV5 assured the board that the show will not commit similar violations in the future while the case against it is ongoing.
TV5 had also suspended the T3 hosts for their comments on the May 7 episode. In a position paper submitted to the MTRCB, the Kapatid network said its suspension of the Tulfo brothers was already enough sanction.
However, the Court of Appeals granted TV5 a 60-day temporary restraining order (TRO) for T3 to air. In a 13-page resolution, the appellate court said “We are of the view that the immediate and continuous execution of the penalties imposed by the MTRCB’s decision bears significant consequences on the freedom of the press and of expression, resulting to irreparable injury to petitioner and the public,” the resolution read. It added, however, that the TRO was “merely to restrain the immediate and continuous execution of the suspension” and that the merits of the main petition still need to be resolved.
TV5 said in a statement that it had filed a case before the Court of Appeals questioning the MTRCB’s jurisdiction on the suspension order.
“It is TV5’s position that the MTRCB has committed acts of prior restraint which constitute a violation of the freedom of the press. The suspension order constitutes another act of prior restraint by the MTRCB.” The network added that the board made a grave abuse of discretion and that is it not authorized by law or its rules to impose the suspension.
Leave a Reply