‘Willing Willie’ suspended for 30 days by MTRCB

(UPDATE 4) The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) has suspended the TV5 game show “Willing Willie.”

The show has been under fire from child-rights advocates for airing an episode last March in which a six-year-old boy was made to perform a number that was described as “macho dancing” or a striptease.

The MTRCB has been investigating the matter for the past month and came out with its final decision on Tuesday.

In the decision announced on Tuesday, the MTRCB’s adjudication committee found that the show’s “violation of Section 3 (c) of PD 1986” warranted a 30-day suspension.”

The MTRCB, however, is “crediting the period of its voluntary suspension” within the 30-day suspension. (The program has been on voluntary suspension since April 9—meaning, it can possibly go back on air on May 9.)

The ratings board also placed the program on probation status—meaning, it can only go on air upon receiving a permit on a per-broadcast basis.

The probationary period will last “until the Board is convinced that the [TV5’s] self-regulatory measures have actually been undertaken and implemented.”

Jonathan Presquito, MTRCB legal counsel, explained: “Every day, the show will have to apply for a permit so that the board can check whether the changes have been instituted.”

MTRCB chair Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares clarified: “They need to be able to demonstrate that they are serious about their proposed changes. The probationary status allows us to monitor the show’s progress and at the same time will hopefully prevent a repetition of the incident. It serves to protect both the network and the viewers.”

The probationary status is indefinite, according to Llamanzares. “It’s open-ended. It will be determined by the adjudication committee,” the MTRCB chair said.

The board clarified that the penalties have been imposed on the show and the network and not on the program’s controversial host, Willie Revillame.

Noel del Prado, chair of the adjudication committee, noted: “Based on the 2009 Supreme Court decision, Soriano vs. Laguardia, the MTRCB’s jurisdiction doesn’t extend to TV personalities and can only cover programs and networks. There was no proceeding against a talent or host.”

Del Prado reiterated that the MTRCB handled an “administrative and not a criminal case.”

The committee’s 14-page resolution, however, emphasized the enormous responsibility of TV hosts to the viewing public. Said the committee’s decision: “Celebrities and TV personalities should exercise the highest degree of care and diligence . . . as their reach and influence [are] greater than any other individual.”

It also stated that “it is the responsibility of networks and talents to educate themselves . . . [about] gender sensitivity, children and women’s rights issues, the rights of indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, senior citizens and other marginalized sectors.”

The decision reminded networks, celebrities and other media practitioners that “we are all advocates. And as advocates, we are duty-bound to fight for a TV industry that does not only make us ‘eat for a day,’ but an industry that inspires, transforms and moves us, to live better lives.”

Llamanzares told the Philippine Daily Inquirer in an exclusive interview that she was happy with the adjudication committee’s resolution of the case.

“I have complete trust in the members of adjudication committee,” Llamanzares said. “They were fair and they weighed the pros and cons of the issue carefully.”

She said that the committee’s task entailed a “tough balancing act.”

“The committee had to determine if there was a violation and what penalty should be implemented. Also, the committee had to take note of the network’s move toward self-regulation. The committee members were able to address all three issues.”

The three members of the adjudication committee—Prado, Milo Sogueco and Carmen Musngi—agreed that the “Willing Willie” issue was a “big . . . landmark case.”

Sogueco, an independent filmmaker, asserted: “It’s easy to get emotional, but we have to study the facts carefully. There were a lot of things to consider: from the public clamor to the network’s moves for self-regulation.”

Musngi, a former school teacher, said: “We wanted to be pro-active and look at all sides of the issue.”

Llamanzares is aware that there are critics who are unhappy with the committee’s decision. “Some may want a heftier punishment. If we don’t credit the days when the show went on voluntary suspension, it may send the wrong signal to other networks — that the Board doesn’t recognize the network’s swift action to rectify a violation. We want the industry to practice self-regulation.”

Llamanzares said it was not just about “meting out punishment. We want to offer constructive resolution so that this incident will not be repeated in the future.”

Llamanzares said that the whole incident could serve as a wake-up call for the entire industry.

“If anything can be gained from all this, it should be a learning experience for the entire industry,” she explained. “TV networks should be able to police themselves. They should be able to educate themselves on the rights of children, women, senior citizens, indigenous peoples. TV networks should not make fun or make light of the plight of marginalized sectors.”

Leonard de Vera, legal counsel of Willie Revillame, said: “We reserve the legal option to file a motion for reconsideration to the decision of the MTRCB. We are, however, comforted by the MTRCB not having found Willie or the program or TV5 [has] committed acts of child abuse or exploitation or child cruelty.”

Responding to De Vera’s statement, Llamanzares told the Inquirer: “I don’t know what else is there to reconsider. In our opinion, we’ve given the most just decision on the matter.”

As Del Prado reiterated that the MTRCB’s jurisdiction on the issue is “administrative and does not cover the child abuse case.”

Musngi said: “This issue will not end with the MTRCB. The child abuse case is not within our jurisdiction. The child abuse case is under the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Commission of Human Rights.”

Sogueco expressed the hope that the case would lead to “responsible broadcasting. It is high time that we set standards for our TV shows. We have to think of the repercussions of our programs.”

Musngi agreed: “It should not just be about ratings and the network wars.”

Del Prado explained: “We had to weigh competing interests: freedom of expression vis-à-vis the protection of children. We want to encourage TV networks to institutionalize the protection of marginalized sectors.”

Llamanzares said that it’s not only the MTRCB’s sole responsibility to protect children. “We need to work with other government agencies like the DSWD and the Department of Labor and Employment, along with industry leaders, to come up with specific guidelines for children. As of now, it seems the safeguards are not sufficient.”

Llamanzares is calling for an industry-wide summit to discuss these pertinent issues—including expanding the present rating system for television. “Apart from General and Parental Guidance, we propose to include Strong Parental Guidance and Mature. This will guide parents in monitoring their children’s viewing fare.”

With a report from Marinel Cruz