MANILA, Philippines -- The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) has stepped up its monitoring of TV shows in relation to content programming, particularly live shows, Atty. Jonathan S. Presquito, MTRCB legal counsel, said.

Presquito said that MTRCB agents are always on alert to check TV shows which violate laws in regard to contents.

“In many cases, live TV shows are always monitored because simultaneous ‘yan. That’s why madalas natin mino-monitor sila.”

In the past, the MTRCB has called the attention of several cable channels from Europe which allegedly violated content laws. He added that due process is followed in investigating similar cases.

“What we do is write them a letter and call their attention. Then we ask them to explain. Kung palagay namin may problema, that’s the time we conduct hearing. But there’s always due process,” Presquito explained.

Presquito said that “Willing Willie” was suspended due to the network’s lack of supervision, and not for anything else. He pointed out that it is not in the jurisdiction of the MTRCB to determine if the game show “Willing Willie” of ABC TV5 committed child abuse.

“The MTRCB is concerned about content. We’re not after the personalities but we focus on content programming. That’s why we did not discuss the allegations on child abuse. It’s not for us to determine kung may child abuse case ang mga TV hosts or ang game show,” Presquito said.

This developed as human rights lawyer Romeo T. Capulong has said that the right of Revillame to due process of law is being violated following the “awesome machineries deployed for a purely commercial action not involving national security or interest.” “There can be no mistaking this,” Capulong said.

“Mr. Revillame has been haled before no less than five different fora: the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the Department of Labor and Employment and the Department of Justice (DoJ),” said Capulong, president of the Public Interest Law Center who was elected by the United Nations General Assembly in 2001 as Judge ad litem of the International Court of Justice.

The lawyer was reacting to the recent suspension of “Willing Willie” following a macho dance routine of a young contestant last March 12.

Capulong said that Revillame’s case is of interest to him because of its grave human rights implications, including the right to due process or the “right to be heard” which is being denied the television host by the government agencies which have already pre-judged him of having committed child abuse.

The lawyer said that he is troubled by the pronouncements of DSWD Secretary Corazon Soliman and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) as expressed in separate letters dated March 28 and 29 sent to the top management of ABC 5 and/or released to the public.

“In both letters, Secretary Soliman and the CHR unequivocally concluded that what happened on ‘Willing Willie’s’ March 12, 2011 episode was a clear case of child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.” Capulong said that since both Soliman and the CHR have accused Revillame of a criminal act which carries a heavy penalty of imprisonment, then “it is incumbent upon both officials to have remained above the fray so as not to raise any specter of bias or partiality.”

“Instead, it is clear from their public pronouncements that they have already pre-judged the incident as an open-and-shut case of child abuse,” said Capulong. In the CHR letter wherein it announced its intent to investigate, Capulong said that the determination of whether or not a crime has been committed “was conducted and terminated (i.e., child abuse was committed) without first hearing from Mr. Revillame and the station and that [the CHR said that] the only thing needed to be done is to ‘identify the persons liable and to recommend the proper legal actions against them.’ “

Capulong said that the same charge of pre-judgment can be leveled against Soliman when she imposed two conditions couched as “requests” to ABC5 management, which were to prohibit young children from appearing on “Willing Willie” and ABC’s other shows that “cash in on poverty” and to rebuke Revillame. “Discretion demands that she (Soliman) should have heard Mr. Revillame and the station before making her demands, without even conceding that she has the right to demand those conditions in the first place. By her actions, it appears that the State is imposing demands on a private individual or enterprise without affording the latter the right to be heard.”

Soliman took it upon herself to file criminal charges against Revillame for alleged child abuse without an investigation, a violation of Section 8 of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases,” Capulong said.

The rule cited by Capulong directs the DSWD to first interview the probable child abuse victim to determine whether an abuse was in fact committed. “DoJ Secretary Leila de Lima followed suit when she declared that the incident ‘really falls under the Child Protection Act.’ This conclusion was likewise reached without the benefit of an investigation. The DoLE likewise weighed in when it announced it would look into the incident as it may allegedly be a case of child labor,” he said.

Various groups have alleged that the game show committed child abuse after it featured a boy contestant engaged in a macho dance routine last March 12. The game show went on voluntary suspension starting April 9, 2011. On May 3, 2011, the MTRCB handed down its decision which suspended “Willing Willie” for one month.

Presquito explained that the MTRCB has included the voluntary suspension of the game show in the one month suspension. Thus, the game show will be allowed to return on air starting Monday, May 9, 2011.

In a text message from ABC TV5 last Tuesday night, it stated: “We are reviewing the decision with our lawyers and we will issue a statement in due course.”