I came across a post on social media about a man who was allegedly killed by one of the bodyguards of a mayor in a small town. The poster was a known critic of the political family who currently governs the town. As I read the caption of the post, the intention was to seek justice for the victim who was physically abused to death by persons associated with the influential people in authority. It also called out the local police for the poor response on the matter at hand. Sooner did I know that the local police chief is apparently a close relative of the mayor.
As expected, the post went viral and people weighed in their sentiments on the issue. The comment section of the post was packed with furious words by netizens who criticized the culprit for his inhumane actions and challenged the authority to put an end to the issue by conducting the necessary investigation and file cases, if possible. Surprisingly, despite having diverse opinions, there was something common in almost all comments—a prominent hashtag recently used by many, the #RaffyTulfoInAction which was placed at the end of each comment.
Hashtags are commonly used as a quick reference to a certain topic. Apparently, the use of the hashtag #RaffyTulfoInAction was intended to call the attention of the veteran journalist Raffy Tulfo, who is known for his public service through his program “Raffy Tulfo In Action.” The radio-television-online program gained vast popularity for tackling bizarre yet entertaining issues of the masses. Most of the time, Tulfo acts as a mediator between two conflicting parties. He tries to resolve problems about almost anything under the sun—ranging from concubinage to domestic violence. Not to mention, he also extends financial aid and any kind of support to the afflicted party. In other words, his platform is sort of a “quasi-judicial” body with a little entertainment on the side.
Taking a different perspective on this phenomenon, the use of #RaffyTulfoInAction by most Filipinos speaks so much about the authorities and the justice system in the country, in general.
By choosing Raffy Tulfo as their go-to person in addressing their issues, it reflects how the public views the people who have all the legal authority to attend their complaints. After all, who could have the confidence to approach the persons in authority, mandated to uphold the law, if these are the same people who violate the same law?
Moreover, the instant resolution provided by the program of Raffy Tulfo is what influences the public to give it a shot. This is the total opposite of how the justice system works in the Philippines. In a quest for the elusive justice, the public sacrificed their right to privacy by making their stories a form of entertainment to everyone. Not to mention, they also need to endure the character-assassination and overcome the unverified, emotion-driven opinion of the viewers.
In a place where even an impartial investigation of the death of a man alleged to be abused by people related to influential politicians seems far-fetched, we cannot condemn the rapid popularity of trial by media. In a country where “justice for all” seems out of reach, who should we blame? Definitely not Raffy Tulfo.
