Free Willie

At the height of his popularity on a noontime show aired by a network that has now filed charges against him, Willie Revillame lived down the road from my house. He was a quiet neighbor and unlike other celebrities in the area, he was not intrusive, noisy or indecent. He did not act like the international celebrity that he was. We once had a neighbor who, at three in the morning, summoned his household by switching on his sirens. We had another whose fleet of security vehicles parked along what his detail must have determined to be major choke points in our toddler, nanny and stroller-occupied village where marauding bands of pre-schoolers hunted wild game, butterflies and frogs. Off-the-cuff judgments for or against Revillame are often a matter of perspective and preference. Like attitudes toward New York City, some hate him, some love him. Revillame is as controversial as his career is speckled and simultaneously charmed and cursed. To praise or condemn him, one needs to be discerning. He is crass yet charming, crude albeit compassionate. In a Quezon City court, Revillame petitioned for the rescission of a contract he had with a previous employer. In his view, while it bound him to one network, the latter prevented him from fulfilling commitments where a suspension indefinitely condemned him to a limbo of sorts. That petition now stands as a parent motion. Because subsequent accusations against Revillame were essentially variations on the theme of competition, each seeking an injunction against the airing of what he does best, two restraining motions were denied for violating a 1999 Supreme Court ruling preventing restraints on succeeding cases that effectively rule on a parent case sans a trial on the original. In another town and another forum, a third case was filed despite contractual provisions stating related disputes be settled in specific jurisdictions. While dealing with copyright infringement, this seeks similar restraints on airing. Citing camera angles, cheering crowds, even the manner prizes are awarded, among others, again competition founds the complaint. This splitting takes us to the law. Relevant jurisprudence in Francisco G. Joaquin, Jr., and BJ Productions Inc. vs. Franklin Drilon, Gabriel Zosa, William Esposo, Felipe Medina, Jr., and Casey Francisco (G.R. no. 108946, January 28, 1999) provides that “the format of a show is not copyrightable”. Citing Section 2 of Presidential Decree 49 it enumerates specific works entitled to copyright. Since copyrights are statutory concessions, rights are obtained only for subjects specified by the statute. This is mirrored in the Intellectual Property Code or Republic Act 8293 where the format or mechanics of a television show is not among specifically protected work. Section 175 states “copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery regardless of (the) form”. In the context of competition, the specificity of copyright protection essentially advances economic productivity through competition, thus mitigating control and domination. Unfortunately, charges of conflicted and self-serving preferences have now entered the courthouse. Citing partiality and conflicted relationships, Revillame’s co-defendant in the copyright infringement case petitioned the Court of Appeals to inhibit a Makati Regional Trial Court presiding judge from hearing the case. The David-versus-Goliath aspect is obvious. Had Revillame returned to being a drummer, he might not be facing these anti-competition lawsuits. Had he turned to newscasting, then copyright infringement charges would be just as absurd despite newscasting’s global mirror format. For Revillame, detractors see veiled arrogance. Unfortunately, what they insist we see and what we do see is not a zero sum. If there is any arrogance, and we do not discount some, it is consumed by what a greater majority see as beneficial to them. We sneer at a thousand-peso hand-out, but for some that is life-changing. They see an iconic rags-to-riches Cinderella who inspires, entertains and protects us from the absurdity of senseless reality. The dichotomy presented by his show as a direct contradiction of a newscast on a rival channel is the most eloquent example. Was it not Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra who said the madness of Don Quixote was preferable to the absurdity of cruel reality? If Quixote as escapism is madness, what is the denigrating news footage of dead fetuses, child rape, murder, criminality, corruption and sex scandals against Revillame’s fans whose faces and hearts brighten with hope and happiness? Preferences underlie Revillame’s charisma. Some hate him. Many don’t. Because his is commonplace and appropriately colloquial, he is condemned by the self-righteous and the high-brow artsy-fartsy. And, incidentally, he is also condemned by those who profit when he is denied a forum. Indeed it is a matter of preferences. Judging by the ratings, many prefer Willie be freed from the bias and binds inflicted on him.