Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

RESTY VINCENT C.

VILLANUEVA III
ELE ADR GG4-1

Nowadays, it is quite uncommon to see the social media hashtag #RaffyTulfoInAction


being commented by netizens on emerging news stories of inequality and injustice, as publicly
posted by Filipinos in their social media accounts. Raffy Tulfo has become a prominent figure in
Philippine society recently, almost deified by the masses as a high figure in the field of law,
wherein troubled individuals can seek legal help and action and expect their cases to be
remedied in a short period of time. However, a question persists: What made Raffy Tulfo and his
public affair programs so popular among the Filipino masses? To address this, it is first
important to understand how the famed Tulfo’s public affairs programs work.

Usually in Tulfo’s programs, complainants seek assistance by telling Raffy Tulfo about
their existing predicament. Tulfo would then contact the other parties in order to get their side of
the story, and a discussion between the parties is then encouraged by the no-nonsense host.
After hearing both sides of the story, Tulfo would then consult Filipino professionals ranging from
high-ranking police officers to specific social workers. There is an obvious allure to this kind of
programming, especially to the common masses. Formal litigation through the courts of law may
take months or even years to push on through, and may cost the parties a lot of pesos in the
process. However, being part of Raffy Tulfo in Action allows them to bypass this lengthy process
by presenting their case in public television or radio, giving them the opportunity to resolve their
cases without expensive lawyers and time-consuming hearings.

However, no matter how compelling this program may present itself to be, it presents a
clear threat to the public specifically with regards to our existing justice system. This type of
programming undermines the credibility and reliability of our courts. Instead of seeking real help
from the legal authorities of the Philippines, citizens may instead prefer to raise their cases in
programming such as Tulfo’s in the hopes that they be given a fair and speedy resolution to
their situations. It may be argued by some that the Tulfo shows may now be a part of the legal
system of the Philippines, however, it is unwise to believe so. Without the wisdom of
experienced lawyers and judges to keep these discussions in check, these shows are ultimately
prone to biases and discrimination. Rather than let the insights of level-headed legal
professionals resolve things, the personal biases of the hosts and the audience themselves,
may instead become the preferred deciding factor on how a situation is settled.

R.A. 9285, otherwise known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, tackles
on the concept of alternative dispute resolution systems which aims to deliver speedy and
impartial justice to appropriate cases through the use of various mechanisms and the enlistment
of private sector participation, as a means to help unclog court dockets. Sec. 3 of R.A. 9285 has
defined ADR, as a procedure to resolve disputes, wherein a neutral third party participates to
assist in the resolution of issues, which includes arbitration, mediation, conciliation, early neutral
evaluation, mini-trial, or any combination thereof. With ADR, parties are free to make their own
arrangements and rely on alternative processes to resolve their situations. With these
definitions, Raffy Tulfo in Action and other similar shows, can fall in the category of Alternative
Dispute Resolution through the definition of mediation.
Sec. 3(q) of R.A. 9285 has defined mediation as a “a voluntary process in which a
mediator, selected by the disputing parties, facilitates communication and negotiation, and
assists the parties in reaching a voluntary agreement regarding a dispute.” With the
aforementioned format of the show, it fits with the idea that Raffy Tulfo in Action may be
considered as “mediation”, albeit made in a public, entertaining manner. The host, Raffy Tulfo, is
selected by the disputing parties once they are made aware of their participation in the show. He
would then facilitate and encourage communication between the parties to resolve the problem.
Should the discussion fail in its objective to settle the dispute, Raffy Tulfo uses his connections
with various relevant figures that may help aid the disputing parties. Legal action is often
encouraged and enforced by the host at the end of each “hearing” which shows that the parties
are assured that there will be real and concrete resolution by the end of their dispute.

The promise of a cheap/free and speedy trial would definitely entice the public eyes. The
courts have been heavily criticized for quite some time now, with regards to its costs and the
length of time it takes to resolve just a single case.To dabble in this shows would be to trade
efficiency, real impartiality, and true legal wisdom in exchange of a fast resolution, low costs,
and convenience. It is important to explore these shows with an educated, but open mind. It is
wise to consider that there are probably thousands of people in the Philippines, especially in the
marginalized communities, who cannot afford to seek formal legal aid to resolve conflicts that
are harming their lives and reputations. To some of us more privileged citizens, the Tulfo shows
could very well be just a meme, an icon of the Philippine justice system’s faults, to laugh at and
ridicule. However, to some of those less fortunate ones, these shows might be the only ways
they could think of to aid in their legal battles, and catch a glimpse of justice. I am adamant,
however, that these shows should never replace our sacred courts, as only they should be
viewed as the true icons of law, the real courier of real, impartial justice for the masses.

You might also like