Monday, June 27, 2011


Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Chairperson Margie Juico had better have solid proof of her allegations of questionable expenditures of the agency’s funds on media people and congressmen during the previous administration.

Juico said friends in media of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo got hefty KICKBACKS from PCSO advertising placements on their radio programs, television shows or newspapers.

But she DID NOT NAME even one of the supposed friends, radio programs, TV shows or newspapers. Neither did she explain how the supposed friends came to be friends of the former president.

Juico said the kickbacks, which she later referred to as commissions, ranged from 40 percent to 50 percent of the ad budget.

Now which is which?

Generally speaking, a kickback is the UNAUTHORIZED share of a person from a business transaction for playing a role in its closure, even though that role is his job.

A commission is the incentive given to the person who either found the buyer or was instrumental in the closure of the deal, and that is perfectly legal.

Anybody correct me if I’m wrong.

Being a former newspaperman, I double-checked with the publication I last worked for before I wrote this piece. I was told that as in the last several years, the commission for ads was still 15 percent, the prevailing industry rate.

The person I talked to describe Juico’s 40 to 50 percent allegation as ‘kalokohan!’

Juico claimed media personalities themselves put up ad agencies to facilitate their commissions. But she did not name even one supposed agency or media person.

Juico alleged that Arroyo lavished PCSO funds on allies in the House of Representatives, most of whom voted against her impeachment.

But she DID NOT NAME even one congressman

She did not cite any amount, how much did each congressman receive and supposedly for what and what was there to complain about – was anything illegal or immoral committed or carried out?

Neither did she present or cite specific proof or evidence of her allegations.

I’m NOT SAYING that Juico is lying. Neither am I trying to defend anybody. I would even encourage her to file cases if evidence warrants.

All I’m saying is when you make an accusation against anyone, you have to PRESENT PROOF, and NOT JUST YOR OWN WORDS to be FAIR.

To give the accused the IMMEDIATE OPPORTUNITY to reply point by point to what you’ll claim.

When you malign a person’s reputation in the public eye without presenting evidence and leaving him or her guessing on how to come clean, THAT’S NOT FAIRNESS.


If Juico will be attacked and pressed by congressmen to name names, she has no right to cry harassment or persecution. 30


  1. I agree with you Boyet....that's the style of the present administration's demolition crew.

  2. Boyet, there is the transparency issue again. You just brought up some good points...that is crystal clear "CHARACTER ASSASSINATION." If you are talking with the media, you know better that whatever comes out from your mouth will be used against you, so start with specifics and use proper citations... Thank you for this topic.

  3. Maganda po ang paliwanag ninyo tungkol dito sa PCSO. Palibhasa po sila na ang nasa pamamahala kaya feeling nila mga magagaling na sila, dahil nga sila ang appointed ni Pinoy! Salamat at nagbigay kayo ng magando punto dito para sa aming kaalaman na mga pangkaraniwang tao lamang!

  4. I agreed with your statement S'Boyet, it is a responsibility of anyone media men or not to present an evidence and filing its litigation in court or in this case the ombudsman, hearing what you have said and facts presented indeed this is another clear character assassination scheme, but what is the purpose, is it to draw attention, is it politically motivated or is it to divert some facts thats slowly being unfolded as we speak..thanks for shedding light on some issue that we local citizens don't have any access to, evidences etc...mabuhay po kau S' Boyet...keep us informed as always...God bless you and our group