Mabini Hall - Access to Justice

The State of the Nation Address aside, one burning issue is the advertisement of products by national politicians. You see them on big billboards endorsing bath soaps, laundry detergents, food supplements and skin care. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago complained to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) that such constitutes premature campaigning and partisan political activity and is a violation of the spirit and intent of our election laws. The Comelec recently ruled that no law was violated and promptly referred the matter to Congress for more legislation. And we thought we had more than enough laws.

What’s wrong with politicians endorsing products or goods? Let’s start with what’s right. Companies only seek politicians because of their prominence. Otherwise, fat endorsement fees will not justify the increase in sales. Politicians are willing to do it even for free to gain exposure. There lies the devil’s bargain and the evils are these:

Politicians are public servants of the first degree. They owe their time, intelligence and industry to the res public and no one else much more private interests.
(Can the contracts of endorsement be disclosed, please?) Thus, with or without a law, they must devote all their efforts to the cause of national development and nation-building. Endorsing a product no matter how good or tested it is does not meet this criterion.

There are obvious conflict of interest situations. Legislators must be aboveboard in all their dealings and stand above the fray to get an objective view of a situation lest they fail to legislate fairly when it concerns their products. The inquiry in aid of legislation is so broad and incisive a power it covers the whole range of commercial transactions including possibly misleading or false advertising.

We have no quarrel with celebrities endorsing fashion items or accessories, or bare bodied models showing off red underwear (up to a certain extent within the bounds of decency); it is totally different if an actress pushes for a brand of medicine that cures her headache from all the shootings. Or a boxer vouching for a painkiller because it works for him. Or a newscaster holding up a bottle of complete vitamin pill for daily protection against stress. In logic, it is called non sequitur or simply it does not follow.

But advertising is not about logic. It is meant to increase sales. And the unthinking consumer associates his love for his idol, for the credibility of the news anchor, or the prominence of a national politician to go out and buy the products.

Mix them all up and that, my friends, is the heart of the problem. Politicians are endorsing commercial products for a fee (possibly moonlighting) and for ad exposure outside the authorized period. If they do it for free, it raises even more questions. For Comelec to rule that it is not barred because of its timing is funny: we know that even before the winning candidates have warmed their seats, they are already on the campaign trail. Who cares about the election period? With historic presidential elections less than two years away, everyone is on campaign mode.

Beyond law and technicalities, it is a matter of common sense and ethics. The dire state of the nation is as it is because of the absence of these two basic elements. It is not a lack of laws or too many laws to be implemented. What can we do? We boycott the products so endorsed, refuse to vote for those who do endorse and in our dealings, try to use our coconut shells, and in our relationships, refer not to expediency but to do what must be done.