Showbiz Fun 2: Tulfo vs. Raymart, Property Rights and Cartoons

This is my article today in the online magazine,  http://www.thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/less-gorvernment/1308-tulfo-vs-santiago-and-property-rights. Below it is a reaction from a friend and our brief discussions, and more funny creation by Filipino humorists.
----------

A cellphone, camera, videocam and other gadget is a private property. Everything inside those gadgets – hardware, software, photos, videos, emails, etc. – are private property too. These cannot be taken away without consent, by force and coercion..

This, I think, is one angle that was not highlighted in the famous brawl between veteran columnist Mon Tulfo and showbiz couple Raymart Santiago and Claudine Barreto at the NAIA (Manila) terminal last May 6, 2012.

I want to share an argument made today by a friend in facebook, Cesar Buendia. I am translating from Filipino to English his arguments. Posting this with his permission.

1. Does Claudine have the right to complain to Cebu Pacific? Yes.
2. Does she have the right to verbally insult the Cebu Pacific staff? No.
3. Does Mon Tulfo have the right to take photos of Claudine in that act? Yes, it’s his work as a reporter and Claudine was doing the act in public. Besides, the couple know that as celebrities, if Claudine makes a scandal, they will be publicized.
4. Does Raymart have the right to get the cellphone of Mon Tulfo? No, it’s Mon’s cellphone. If he did not want his wife to be publicized for the scandal, he should have controlled his wife from making the scandal.
5. Do Raymart and Mon have the right to a fistfight? It’s their life.
6. Do they have the right to sue each other? Again, it’s their life.


My point: celebrities, if you do not want to be publicized and scandalized, behave. And if you cannot behave in real life, keep from the public your insanity, do not get angry if reporters will publicize your scandal. For the reporters, if you get hit, do not threaten with revenge, it is part of your job to expose other people’s foul action, it is just natural that other people will get angry at you. If you are requested not to take photos, stay out or you might get beaten up.

I told Cesar that I fully agree with his analysis. So readers, consider that I also wrote the above, except that I may have slightly different words.

The disrespect of private property and individual dignity is often the root of many misunderstanding and conflict among people. In the case of the Tulfo-Santiago fight, here are the property rights that were violated.

a. Santiago-Barreto’s luggage that were offloaded by Cebu Pacific in Caticlan/Boracay airport without consent from the said passengers. The airline can cite the plane and passengers’ security and safety for doing so, but it must get the permission of passengers first, or seek volunteers among passengers who already checked in that their luggage will be bumped off, in exchange for some compensation. Cebu Pacific’s insensitivity on this matter was the trigger that sparked off the fight in the first place. Boooo Cebu Pacific.

b. Cebu Pacific staff at Manila Airport whose personal dignity were violated when Claudine verbally abused them. The fault was on Cebu Pac management in general, and the Cebu Pac Caticlan airport staff in particular, not those in Manila airport.

c. Mon Tulfo’s cellphone that Raymart and/or Claudine wanted to be taken from its owner so that photos or videos that might be incriminating against Claudine can be removed. Private property is sacred, it cannot just be taken away without consent, without threats of physical harm or similar threats. Otherwise, society can easily degenerate into chaos as bad guys can just take away other people’s cellphone, shoes, car, other private property.

d. If it is true that Mon Tulfo physically harmed Claudine when the latter insisted to take out his cell phone, then Mr. Tulfo is also at fault for initiating the physical assault.

e. Then there was a reported tv broadcast by Mon Tulfo’s sons saying they want a confrontation with Raymart, like “last man standing”. The youtube clip was said to have been removed later.

There will be new facts, new stories and spins that will come out as the investigations, accusations and counter-accusations are on-going.

I believe there is a need for humility on both sides. Claudine should apologize to the Cebu Pacific staff in Manila airport that she has reprimanded. She should apologize also to Mon for demanding that the latter should give (or “surrender”?) his cellphone to her. Mon should apologize to Claudine for whatever physical harm he has inflicted on her. Raymart should apologize to Mon for the severe beating he has inflicted on the old man.

Of course this is better said than done. Giving public apology is something that is rare among famous personalities in the country, from politicians to showbiz to media to NGO personalities. Their respective action and counter-action are always justified. And so the court cases backlog keep piling up. To shorten the pile up, some rich and politically influential parties resort to bribing the judges. And the rule of law is badly compromised and damaged.

Somehow we have to start and restart from the basic. Respect individual dignity, respect private property, respect the rule of law, do not threaten with putting the law into one’s hands.
-------

Two of those funny creations shared in facebook and other social network, right and below.

After posting the above article in facebook, a friend Doods delos Reyes commented, here is our exchanges:

Doods hi Noy, in Cebu Pacific's case, the General Terms and Conditions of Carriage of Passengers and Baggage are quite clear. Clause 13.1.1(f) states: "Whenever possible, Checked Baggage will be carried on the same aircraft as the Passenger. The Airline may decide for safety, security or operational reasons to carry it on another flight. If a Checked Baggage is carried on a subsequent flight, the Airline will deliver it to the Passenger unless applicable law requires the Passenger to be present for clearance by customs authorities." These terms are implicitly accepted by the passenger by booking and using the service provided.

Nonoy Good points Doods, thanks. I assume that all airlines have this condition. Then passengers will be at the mercy of airlines on certain cases then.

Doods from what I gather, it a custom by most airlines. I also read that the offloaded luggage had already been delivered by Cebu Pacific to the passengers and there was even an offer to refund the amount paid for excess baggage. The airport in Caticlan is small and can only accommodate small aircraft with 60 seats or less. I would imagine that offloading of baggage due to size & weight restrictions here happens from time to time.

Nonoy I bet 99.8 percent of airline passengers (including me) do not read the entire Terms and Conditions of airline tickets so the extent of disappointment should be high. I also bet that frequent flight delays would spare the airlines of any liability, even if the fault is on them like in cases of over-booking and all the passengers have showed up, and not due to airport or "runway congestion".

What we passengers can do is to expose these things to hopefully shame those habitual violator airlines. So that whatever propaganda they have like CSR, "save the planet" partnership with WWF etc, will be negated. They behave that way because there is no open sky policy, they are protected by the Constitution and leave us ordinary passengers with little choice but 2 or 3 local airlines to choose.

Doods hehe it's good practice to read through such T&Cs, or at least print them out and have them with you at the ready.

Nonoy Right. Meanwhile, Cebu Pac, like PAL, opposes an Open sky poicy. They always want "reciprocity" which makes the policy drag on for decades with little positive results.
----------

See also:
Showbiz Fun: Mon Tulfo vs. Raymart/ Claudine Fight, May 07, 2012
Property Rights 5: IPRI 2012 Report, April 18, 2012
Property Rights 4: Trees, SM Baguio, Henry Sy and Twitter, April 12, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 5: Property Rights, Policy Lefts, April 04, 2012

Showbiz Fun: Mon Tulfo vs. Raymart/ Claudine Fight

Uhmmm, this is my first post on showbiz people and their public fights. I find the brawl at the NAIA Terminal 3 brawl yesterday funny. It involved a veteran journalist for many years, print and broadcast commentator Mon Tulfo, and showbiz couple Raymart Santiago and Claudine Barreto.

The stories and news reports are everywhere, one beauty of the internet. The video is also everywhere. Here are some still shots I copied from that video. Upper photos Raymart on the attack, lower photos Claudine nangabayo (hehehe) and the couple's friends doing their share. It's indeed a gang up on the 68 years old lolo Mon Tulfo.

Raymart said that video, and these photos, were just "part 2" of an earlier altercation where Tulfo was the first to punch. Don't know how true this is.

Now here's the fun side. Filipinos making fun of Mon Tulfo himself. His key message in his print, radio and tv programs involving criminal cases (petty or serious) is: "Isumbong mo kay Tulfo" (Report it to Tulfo). The cartoon then asked after he was mauled, "To whom should I report?"

The next photo on the right, "Kanino kayo?" Or Whose side do you bet? Filipinos, really, are notorious for making fun of almost any event.

On a serious note though, here are my observations after seeing the video and reading some news reports.

1. Claudine Barreto's motormouth (or "bungangera", "palengkera") attitude caught other people's attention at the airport, including Mon Tulfo. The mistake was made at Boracay/Caticlan airport, not in Manila, so berating a staff at the Manila terminal is wrong. Cebu Pacific acknowledged mistake for offloading two of the luggage of the couple and their friends.

2. Mon Tulfo is justified in taking photos, or a video, of Claudine's verbal abuse (or attack) of the Cebu Pacific staff. He's a journalist, whether serious or sensational media, he needs some proof when he writes or says something.

3. Raymart is hot tempered. Assuming that his statement that it was Tulfo who shouted and punched first is true, the series of punches he hauled plus that of his buddies were OA. Tulfo is old, he does not deserve a volley of punches.

4. Security guards and police at the Terminal 3 did not control the fight early enough. And more than 24 hours after the incident, they should have released their report and finding of who really started the brawl, Tulfo or Raymart. It's possible that they are calculating or "massaging" their report or statement before they release it to concerned parties.

5. Cebu Pacific has been on the news frequently due to frequent flight delays, and offloading of passengers and/or their luggage even if they have come on time for their flight. Its inefficiency triggered the said fight.

More fun in the Philippines!

On another note, I have stopped flying Cebu Pacific since a year ago. My last flight with them was my Manila-Naga trip, May 2011. It took me about 1:25 hours standing just to check in. Then my flight was delayed. Going to Naga, and going back to Manila the next day.

So I advice my friend to find other airlines whenever possible. Besides, Cebu Pac and the Gokongweis are among the major financiers of climate liars and racketeers World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Airline oligopoly 1: Philippine AirLines

An American friend based in Iloilo City, Bruce Hall, made the following observations in his facebook wall yesterday. He gave me permission to post this in my blog.
--------

Bruce: Philippines Airlines (PAL) is a deceitful, low-class airline that will charge you excess, unnecessary fees unless you say otherwise. But extra charges should be exactly that -- extras chosen, not charged unless indicated otherwise. No wonder they are in trouble, losing to the competition. They should treat their passengers better.

Sandra: You must be talking about the travel insurance that you have to uncheck when purchasing your ticket online. I'm wary about that since my ticket price jumped unexpectedly once.

Bruce: I am indeed. Tricky. Deceitful. Usually I carefully look at such things but I didn't notice it this time since I was in a rush, having to prepare for a meeting.

Bruce Hall ‎@Benjamin Vallejo Jr: I don't consider this a relative thing. I don't care what other airlines do. This is deceitful even if every airline in the world, including Cebu Pacific, did it. Two wrongs don't make a right. If both were doing it, they would both be wrong, both be deceitful.

But Cebu Pacific does not. Cebu Pacific is more honest and upfront than PAL.

Cebu Pacific forces you to click something. You have to either select it or unselect a check box before clicking through to the next page. With Cebu Pacific, if you do nothing because you don't see the insurance charge, you get an error message. With PAL, if you do nothing because you don't see it, you are charged.

PAL is more deceitful; Cebu Pacific is more transparent, when it comes to travel insurance charges.

Benjamin: Cebu Pac got the same complaints in the past and they attended to it. :)

Bruce: Let me also compare a bit more how Cebu Pacific does it versus PAL.

Cebu Pacific has an entirely separate "Add-Ons" page that has three distinct sections. At the top is the insurance -- it is the first thing you see -- followed by Sports Equipment and World Wildlife Fund for Nature. Nothing else is on that page.

PAL lists insurance "below the scroll" so to speak, squeezed between lots of fine print. Further the print is smaller.

Cebu Pacific has made an effort to bring it to our attention. PAL has not, except for some small red lettering. Indeed, it looks like PAL buried it at least one "page down" or "page up" away from anything that we are forced to click.

This makes it even worse. So this has been controversial. Cebu Pacific took steps to fix it. PAL hasn't. That is very deliberate on PAL's part, a decision higher up the ranks. If no one had complained then maybe PAL can be excused by blaming an underling or saying they didn't know. They know and yet they chose deceit.

By the way, a friend just flew PAL from Japan. The 747 was only partially full. Did PAL therefore let people spread out and enjoy their flight a bit better, maybe even giving them enough space to lie down across two or three seats? No, they crammed everyone into the back third of the plane. Again, PAL puts their interest above the comfort of the flying public. Any other airline in the world would have spread passengers out, making them feel special, lucky even. No cattle car on PAL, the passengers could have reported to their friends. Instead PAL made it feel like a cattle car, unnecessarily.

Nonoy Oplas: Good discussions Bruce. I think even PAL stewards are also deceitfully friendly. Two years ago, our Delta flight from Atlanta to Tokyo was cancelled due to plane mechanical trouble. That same plane was supposed to fly Tokyo-Manila. In short, a series of Delta flight cancellations. Delta booked us in PAL for our Tokyo-Manila fight, business class. The stewards were very friendly with us on flight. After we landed in NAIA, while waiting for our bags, some of those stewards passed us by and did not even smile to us.

Bruce: I say, Open Skies NOW! People in Iloilo, where tens of thousands of Koreans live studying English, are dying to get international flights in, but of course Manila, Clark, Cebu, etc. don't want the competition.

I think that one of the problems with PAL is its corporate culture. Somewhere in its corporate DNA it still feels and acts like a government monopoly.

You know, PAL was the first airline in the entire world that ever weighed by carry-on! Now there are two -- PAL and Cebu Pacific. Sad. So bureaucratic. So ridiculous. I weigh dozens of kilos more than my wife but they worry about my bag being 2 kilos more than the bureaucratic rules says. So small-minded. So much time and energy -- and money -- wasted on irrelevancies. This country cannot afford such waste. Such bureaucratic-mindedness.

Nonoy: My lawyer friend observed that aside from the heavy bureaucracy of PAL, he notes that PAL's US flights are not that profitable. Some Congressmen/women and their spouses would go to the US and do lots of shopping. They fly Delta or Cathay or other bigger airlines, but they load their huge shipments at PAL flights, free. Those legislators are doing some favor for Lucio Tan anyway in his tobacco business.

So in this case, PAL has to earn from other sources, like the deceitful insurance charges and extra charges on hand carried luggage that you mentioned.
-------

I also support Open Sky policy. Allow as many foreign airlines to land in as many Philippine airports as possible. Those airlines have their own marketing strategies and niche markets that allow them to lure their loyal passengers to visit the Philippines.

I'm sure that is heavy lobbying by both PAL and Cebu Pacific, the two biggest national airlines, to resist that policy as it will mean stiffer competition for them. But many domestic industries -- hotels, restaurants, beach resorts, mountain resorts, golf courses, other tourist and convention spots -- will greatly benefit from more foreigners coming in.