RIGHT OR WRONG: AN ANALYSIS ON “WANTED SA RADYO” THROUGH THE

LENSES OF JEREMY BENTHAM’S UTILITARIANISM

Case Study

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements in Ethics:

Submitted by:

Benlot, Marjhon B.

Bigay, John Thomas B.

Consulta, Donald Josh A.

Domingo, Mary Millany Christine-Rose

Pareja, Jasmine T.

Punsalan, Kate Wenslet D.

BPAOU 1-B

Submitted to:

Prof. Jalaine Joyce V. Malabanan

February 2023
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………….... 4

METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………... 7

APPLICATION OF THEORY ………………………………………………………………. 9

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………..…. 19
 INTRODUCTION

Today, staying up-to-date on the latest information is essential. The media enables

people to stay informed about the most pertinent and important news. Our society relies

heavily on the media for mass communication, and it is also the most informative source of

information. In the history of the Philippines, the first broadcast was made on October 23,

1953 as DZAQ-TV Channel 3 in the operation of Alto Broadcasting System (Decena, 2019).

Even now, television has become a part of our daily life, and various types of shows provide

us with information, knowledge and entertainment. In terms of education, health and social

news, viewers are given access to a variety of shows and genres to keep them entertained.

There are several types of media, the print media, broadcast media and internet media. In

print media, words and images are printed on paper, such as in newspapers, books, and

magazines. The broadcast media includes information transmitted via various mass

communication channels, such as television and radio. Alternatively, internet media refers to

digital content distributed online, such as emails and publications (Indeed Editorial Team,

2021). In a poll conducted by Pulse Asia, it appears that the majority of Filipinos still prefer

to get news by watching television. However, there is also an increase in radio (49%) and

internet from 44% has now become 48% (Maru, 2021). From 2015 to 2018, the Philippines

ranked as the "Social Media Capital of the World" for three consecutive years. In the study

conducted in 2017, the average Filipino spent almost four hours on social media, and in 2018,

it appears that the average Filipino spent 9 hours everyday. (Mateo, 2018). In the first quarter

of 2021, the Philippines is still among the 20 countries with the most internet users (Internet

World Stats, 2022).

In the local media, the public affairs program "WANTED SA RADYO" is one of the

most watched by the people that airs every Monday-Friday from 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM on 92.3
FM (Radyo5), simulcast on Television via OnePH and live via Facebook Page and Youtube

Channel “Raffy Tulfo In Action.” Its main anchor Raffy Tulfo, a broadcast journalist better

known as "Action Man" or "Idol Raffy" due to being a hard-hitting commentator on issues

pertaining to the violations of the law by people in power and the oppression of ordinary

citizens (Raffy Tulfo in Action, n.d.). Currently, the official social media accounts of Raffy

Tulfo that he uses in his program have 21 million followers on the Facebook Page, and 25

million subscribers on the Youtube Channel. Due to the country's dysfunctional justice

system, Raffy Tulfo's program served as an alternative run for justice. It greatly aroused the

intention of the public for their desired justice and delivered entertainment, people no longer

have to go to court and spend a lot of time and money and instead they will just go to Tulfo's

program. The acts of the main anchor in the program seem to be embraced by ordinary

Filipinos because it is like an equalizer because it aggressively gives a comment and publicly

shames any position of the person being complained about, even if it is a police officer,

politician, and other people who are uplifted in life (Bonifacio, 2019).

'Instant justice' mentality makes them feel like a winner for experiencing justice as it

should have been served. As a result, people often advise each other "Ipa-Tulfo mo" or say

"Ipapa-Tulfo Kita" to get instant justice or the 'Tulfo Justice' they believe they deserve. A

radio show trial by publicity hosted by a well-known Anchorman who has been a household

name for helping thousands of oppressed Filipinos deprived of social justice and human

rights, would serve as a way for many Filipinos to bypass due process and seek help from an

instant justice on-air (Del Cusay, 2019). In spite of this, the accused's public ridicule may

persist online due to the availability of social media. If the mess between the two parties is

settled, the recorded humiliation will still be on the internet. According to Atty. Libayan,

Raffy Tulfo uses public shaming in many episodes of its program. Public shaming is by
nature a form of punishment that aims to embarrass a person in front of many people either

online or in physical conversation. If humiliating a person in public is already a punishment,

then it is a form of injustice to everyone (Pinoy Stack Staff). Furthermore, there are times that

when the accused is explaining his side or some officials involved in the problem of the two

parties, they suddenly cut off their speech. However, in the study conducted by Redulla, et al.

(2022) it shows that the program has both positive and negative effects. They both

acknowledge that the presented cases are entertaining and inappropriate for television and

broadcast. The show has improved the public's knowledge of the legal system or they educate

the public at the same time which is helpful for finance, there are also those who disagree

because it humiliates defending parties, subjecting them to criticism, and trial by publicity.

Every citizen has equal rights, that's why every case should go through the due process and

not the trial by publicity (Project Jurisprudence, 2021). Trial by publicity only leads to

perverted justice and confusion, justice should be supported by evidence and not covered by

social media (Calleja, 2021).

Along with the information and studies presented, this paper aims to analyze the

“WANTED SA RADYO” television program if it is morally right or wrong. The responses of

random citizens as viewers of the local media were carefully analyzed by the researchers. As

a framework for developing a conclusion from the collected data, this academic paper used

Jeremy Bentham's Theory of Utilitarianism.

DATA RESOURCES

The primary data for this study were collected from the random citizens. The secondary or

supporting data were gathered from records and articles in books and electronic devices via

the internet and e-books. The primary data are related to the respondents' moral positions on

the issue and their opinions and responses. The secondary data are used to support this study's

main topic and subject. These data are combined as needed by the study to provide the

necessary answers to the questions it poses.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The easiest and the fastest way of gathering information is through questionnaires. A

questionnaire is a set of questions which when answered properly by the required number of

properly selected respondents, will supply the necessary information to complete a research

study. The questionnaire was designed so that most of the respondents could be able to

answer the question by encoding their answers in the appropriate space provided, giving

convenience to the person answering the questions.

One research instrument was used in this study and disseminated through Google

Forms. The research instrument was developed by the researchers and contains questions

related to the aim of this study. In addition to this, the researchers individually approach the

respondents of the study. Right amount of time is given to the respondents to answer. After

the collection of data, the researchers assured a 100% retrieval rate.

The research instrument contains the questions:

1. What is your perspective about Raffy Tulfo's acts in his program 'WANTED SA

RADYO' for resolving conflicts and disputes?

this program?

3. For you, is the program really helpful for the public?

4. What can you say about the 'INSTANT JUSTICE' that Raffy Tulfo's program
provides?

5. Does the program really serve people or just for the popularity and main anchor's

self-interest and self-exaltation to the public's eye?

6. Does the program provide equal justice for both the complainant and accused?
 RESULTS

This part of the paper contains data and information from the responses of random

citizens. Researchers asked participants a series of questions, and each response was

contained within the tables.

Table 1

Respondents Age Sex

Person 1 18 M

Person 2 18 F

Person 3 19 M

Person 4 24 F

Person 5 18 F

Person 6 30 M

Person 7 18 F

Person 8

Person 9 21 M

Person 10 20 M

Table 1 presents the age and gender of the respondents, there are 4 males and 4 females.

Their ages range from 18-30, three are 18 years old, two are 19 years old, a 20 year old, a 21

year old, one is 24 and another is 30. While one respondent did not put its age and gender.
 Table 2

Question 1. What is your perspective about Raffy Tulfo's acts in his program 'WANTED
SA RADYO' for resolving conflicts and disputes?

As far as I can see, he is very proud of what he does and in every episode of the program he
always humiliates someone

For me, Raffy Tulfo's program 'WANTED SA RADYO' only draws drama to the people who
approach him which causes him to become more famous and people think that they can easily
help them here.

His program is a big help especially for poor people. Helping the improverished and
marginalized with domestic issues and societal injustices is the program's main goal.

It's ok, I just don't like the humiliation parts

I never really watched Raffy Tulfo in Action- although yes he was able to help a lot of people
especially in public sector, however being in my course right now I became more open and I
was able to understand that there are proper way in dealing with the kind of issues that Raffy
Tulfo has been dealing with. That is not the right way to serve justice.

Its very wrong

I little bit disagree with the acts of the main anchor here, because most of the disturbances
there end in humiliations

I’m confused if yes or no. Yes he can help, but for me sensitive information should not be
aired on TV because it is a bit embarrassing. Most of the people who came to him are old
people, and I think they don't know that Tulfo is also making money from them.

Maybe others like his way, but me, I don't like it.

I totally disagree with the said program. seeking justice from an online-based platform should
not be tolerated. People seek for "Instant Justice" nowadays. This leads them to a program
who publicly airs their issues, when it should be discussed and solved privately.

Table 2 shows the perspective of the respondents on the way the program resolves

conflicts and disputes. Almost all the responses say that they disagree with the actions of the

program, it is said to be helpful but it causes embarrassments because of sensitive

information. While another said that it helps poor people.

Question 2. What can you say about the condition of the people accused or complained abou
program?

In most of the episodes I watched, what happened to the accused was complicated. Because
the accusations were uttered live and seen by many, it brought shame to him as well as to the
relatives.

They face great mortification, because the accusations are sprouted on the internet.

With the extent of the internet and the number of its users, the sensitive information may last
there and the person complaining will be aggrieved for life even after the trouble is over.

Maybe they are a bit hurt, because the complainant will be the first to speak and after that, the
information that damages his character has been shared on TV

It is not only the accused who is humiliated, but also his relatives and acquaintances.

We saw, they have been humiliated and the same with those who know the people close to
them

Maybe there is a chance that what they are accused of is true, but most of what I have seen is
just shamed and then not imprisoned. They just became an internet meme.

As I said, even if he is accused or complained about, he is immediately humiliated even

They are embarrassed because the information that is being thrown about them is on air, even
after the conflict, the information that was shared cannot be deleted from the internet right
away, so they are poor.

The situation they face is quite complicated. they are not the only one affected, but also those
close to them

In table 3, according to the respondents, not only the defendants face mortification but

also their relatives. Even though the trouble between them and the complainant was over, it

was aired on the internet which will forever make them a laughingstock.
 Table 4

Question 3. For you, is the program really helpful for the public?

No, because even though it's entertaining, most of the things mentioned here should be
privatized and legally scrutinized.

Big no, because that only causes wrong ways for those who can see to fix problems in a
quiet and orderly way.

Nope, because the public has nothing to gain from this. Only the program makes money
while the two contenders are humiliated.

I think not

No, it's not helpful and it definitely has negative effects on the abuse- and worse case
scenario it can as well affect the people around the abuse.

somehow there is little knowledge for people

Noo, a big no. Maybe they are just being entertained because of the humiliation they saw

I think it is not, people are having the wrong way on how to gain justice in a proper way.

no. they are the ones who are helpful to tulfo because when the number of viewers increases,
tulfo will earn money. while he only encourages people on how to publicly shame.

No, Because there are proper procedures for punishments, it should not be publicly shaming
them. and this is what people should learn.

According to table 4, all ten respondents said that the program does not help the public.

Based on respondents' opinions, the program's approach to resolving cases is wrong, as it

leads to wrong thoughts in people. Furthermore, according to the two respondents, it gives a

bit of knowledge and is somehow entertaining but there is still a big problem about

embarrassment caused by the actions.

Question 4. What can you say about the 'INSTANT JUSTICE' that Raffy Tulfo's program
provides?

Because of the instant justice it seems that this program has become a business, instead of
going to the court, people come here to be feasted on by the viewers.

I can't say that there is 'instant justice' but there is an instant case solved. When the person
being complained is humiliated, they cannot defend themself so the case ends immediately in
favor of the complainant.

Raffy Tulfo in action is not a government office and does not administer justice. Although it
appears to facilitate the administration of justice by public shaming most of the time, it
encourages alternative dispute resolution and worse, shortcuts.

this instant justice seems to have become the mindset of many people, they don't realize that
tulfo's acts are the only one benefiting from the program

People choose to go to Tulfo either because they cannot afford to pay for a lawyer or maybe
simply because they lack knowledge but somehow somewhere Raffy Tulfo in Action ignores
the right way of giving justice.

Actually if you use your critical thinking, You could say that there is no case fixed in Raffy
tulfo's program and many lives were ruined. Raffy Tulfo only use the victims for views and
for Grandstanding. Cases were only referred and handled by the Public Attorneys Office
(PAO) and not Raffy Tulfo's lawyers.

This has a bad result for people, because if they are attracted to instant justice that is pure
humiliation, more people will be humiliated.

This is it, this mentality is the result of each episode of the program. If it's just like this, there
will always be someone who will be embarrassed while the program benefits because he
makes money from the viewers.

This instant justice is not real justice, it's all just a trial by publicity. It seems that the instant
justice that is used to is just equal to the immediate case solve that someone is embarrassed

"Instant Justice" that Raffy Tulfo's program provides, aims for nothing but popularity and
profits. The issue between parties may be over and fixed, but it is uploaded publicly... the
reason why the humiliation keeps on surfacing.

Table 5 presents the perspectives of the respondents regarding the 'INSTANT JUSTICE'

provided by the program. In their combined views, it appears that there is no justice here and

instead it is just a business. Others said that people had the mentality of 'instant justice' and

they only go to the program thinking that justice is here, so, it is only repeated that there are
people who are humiliated. A respondent added that it is not Raffy Tulfo who handles the

cases brought here, but the Public Attorneys Office.

Table 6

Question 5. Does the program really serve people or just for the popularity and main
anchor's self-interest and self-exaltation to the public's eye?

For me, this is done only for the interest of the program and that too for the popularity of the
main anchor. Because if they really want to help the public, they should be careful in airing
their conversations.

Like I said, for me it doesn't help the complainants and only Raffy Tulfo benefits because he
becomes more famous when he gets drama from people who approach him.

Maybe he's just using the warring sides and the amount of viewers to make money and
become famous

Its more of a 50/50. Though he wants to help but there are days that it was more for popularity

Yes, I think that all of it is just for popularity, especially since he is also into politics. He needs
to be known in the public which is so much worse..

Yes, and as you can see. Many now are Tulfonatics and just a "Yes-man" of Raffy Tulfo
without really thinking what is wrong and what is right.

From what I see, it serves both the people, and Tulfo's popularity and self-interest are attached
to it because he is also a politician.

Well, the anchor is a politician, so I think it's just self-exaltation

If we weigh, the main anchor has now become a politician, so I think it's just personal interest
and not for people.

It is just being done for Tulfo's interest in popularity. They are fully aware that the issues
they're handling are aired publicly. The accused might suffer from public humiliation, and the
show must be fully aware of these for they are the ones who's responsible for anyone's
privacy.

In table 6, almost all the respondents believe that it does not really serve the people, rather

it is only for the popularity, profit or interest of the program. However, according to two

respondents, there are times when it is helpful but the interest of the program is attached to it.
 Table 7

Question 6. Does the program provide equal justice for both the COMPLAINANT and
ACCUSED?

No, because people feast on them on the internet. It causes too much pain while the program
only earns from its episodes.

There is no equal justice for the complainant and the accused because even if it is said that
Raffy Tulfo will not be biased, he cannot avoid believing the complainant more because that is
where he draws popularity, among those who approach him.

No, that instant justice mentality may just be enough to make them feel a winner but the issue
between parties may have ended peacefully but the humiliation and embarrassment for both
parties may stay forever.

Well there is no justice there, even if you say you gave comfort to the complainant. Their
issues that should be private have already been found out by many people on the internet, so
where's the justice there? Both parties are embarrassed

Maybe yes it gives some satisfaction to the complainant but NO it doesn't give justice for both
(complainant and abuse). I think it's very one-sided and that isn't how serving justice is, -both
the complainant and the accused are just embarrassed, and there is no justice right away

The program really helps, but not for the complainants. It helps the anchor, the hosts especially
Raffy Tulfo for his fame and for the views in Youtube. For the complainants and Accused,
They only shame themselves as well as their family in the program

as I said earlier, the program causes shame, there is no justice on both sides

No, because they don't know that they are both embarrassed. For me, the complainant chose to
go to this program because it's very popular. He thinks that only the one he's complaining
about will be embarrassed, but they don't realize that they are both.

my opinion is NO. The simple conflicts should be privatized by the program, they should no
longer be live on the internet and aired on TV because both sides are embarrassed.

No, the information shared by both parties only led to embarrassment. they are both affected..

It can be seen in table 7 that all the respondents said that the program does not provide

justice to the complainant and defendant. They have a strikingly similar point about how

justice is being lost on both sides responding to the program, and this is the shame that comes

from airing information on television and the internet.

As stated at the beginning of this paper, the researchers used the ethical theory of Jeremy

Bentham’s Utilitarianism to determine whether the program 'WANTED SA RADYO' is

morally right or not.

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher and political reformer who is well known

for his moral philosophies. He was the father of ethical theory utilitarianism, a moral theory

that argues that actions should be judged right or wrong based on what its consequences are

(Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.). Based on Bentham’s philosophy, actions should

be moral when their consequences are good, and immoral when they are harmful. As an

atheist, in his book "Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" he believes that

man is capable of making decisions and doing pleasurable things and knows how to avoid

pain (D’Olimpio, 2019). Furthermore, Bentham created the idea that happiness and pleasure

are not the only things that matter, so it does not mean that people can do whatever they set

their minds to do. Because the moral agent will take the action that maximises the happiness

or pleasure of everyone involved.

This theory of Bentham is also known as consequentialist, because the moral value of an

action or event is determined entirely by the consequences of that event. It is also said to be

teleological (from the Greek word "telos" means "end" ) because its main focus is the end of

an action. Relativistic instead of absolutist, because actions can only be said to be right or

wrong depending on the situation. Maximizing, because the goal is not only to promote

pleasure, but to ensure the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. And
lastly, it is impartial because it promotes the maximum amount of happiness for the

maximum number of people, regardless of the person's status in life (LibreTexts, 2021).

As an empiricist, Bentham came up with a way to measure morality in a scientific way.

This is called 'Hedonic' or 'Felicific' calculus. In hedonistic calculus, it measures the degree of

pleasure or pain of the specific action through the following criteria: Intensity (what is the

strength of the feeling of pleasure or pain that would result from performing the action?),

Duration (how long would the pleasure or pain last after the action?), Certainty (how sure

can we be that the action will result in pleasure or pain?), Propinquity (is the pleasure or

pain immediate, or will it be delayed to another future time?), Fecundity (does the action

have the ability to reproduce the same sort of feelings?), Purity (is there a chance that the

pleasure of an action will lead to further pain and vice versa?) and extent (how far-reaching

is the action regarding people impacted as a result?) (Adie, 2022). It is also called the

“principle of utility.” For Bentham, happiness is having more pleasurable things than pain,

happiness is simply the absence of pain. If the balance is in favor of pleasure, then the act is

morally right but if it is in favor of pain it is morally wrong (Schwartz, 2018).

In the collection of data, it appears that all random citizens surveyed by the researchers

know the broadcast journalist Raffy Tulfo and they are aware of the activities of the program

'WANTED SA RADYO.' In their statements, it appears that what they see as the main

consequences of the actions taken by the program is not only the embarrassment of the

defendant, but also the complainant. The aired sensitive information is the cause of this,

because of this the program becomes popular and brings the mentality of 'instant justice'

which people prefer to respond to the said program. This pain will only be repeated and there

will be hurt complainants and accused. In that situation, the program will only make money
as people go to them. As the viewers and popularity rise the only one who will benefit from

this is the program and not the people, that's why it can be said that pain is more than

happiness for the greatest number of people.

As a conclusion, this study shows that the consequences of the acts of the television

program 'WANTED SA RADYO' is morally wrong. It favors the pain of the standards of the

theory of utilitarianism that has the principle of utility that says "An act is morally right if it

produces greatest happiness to the greatest number of people and it is morally wrong if it

produces more pain than pleasure to the majority of the people involved.” The consequences

of Tulfo's actions resulted in 'instant justice' where he was able to persuade people to go to

him instead of going to court. Here the complained or accused may be embarrassed, in this

situation, this is a form of disadvantage for many people. Because instead of going through

the correct process, they go to the business of the program and it only makes profit and

popularity from the complainant, accused and viewers. The more people go to the program,

the more someone will be embarrassed, and this is where he will benefit and not more people.

Because of the pain that the program caused, it failed to produce the greatest happiness for

the greatest number of people, and instead it only benefited from the consequences of its own

actions.
 REFERENCES

Adie, A. (2022). The Ethicist’s Toolbox: Jeremy Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus. The

Collector.https://www.thecollector.com/ethicist-toolbox-jeremy-bentham-hedonic-calc

ulus/

Decena, J. (2019). History of Television Broadcasting in the Philippines. History of TV

Broadcasting in the Philippines.

Academia.https://www.academia.edu/38246166/History_of_Television_Broadcasting

_in_the_Philippines_docx

Calleja, H. (2021). HOWIE SEE IT: Truth Versus Trial By Publicity. THE PHIL BHIZ

NEWS.https://thephilbiznews.com/2021/01/08/howie-see-it-truth-versus-trial-by-publ

icity/

Del Cusay (2019). The Tulfo Justice and Why That Should Bother Us. Del Make it

Happen.https://www.delcusay.com/2019/11/the-tulfo-justice-and-why-that-should.htm

D’Olimpio, L. (2019). Big Thinker: Jeremy Bentham. The Ethics

Centre.https://ethics.org.au/big-thinker-jeremy-bentham/

Indeed Editorial Team (2021). What Are the Different Types of Media? Indeed.
 https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/types-of-media#:~:text=Br

oadcast%20media%3A%20Broadcast%20media%20includes,such%20as%20televisio

n%20and%20radio.

Inquirer.Net (2019). Impaired justice system leads people to ‘Tulfo justice.’ Inquirer.

https://opinion.inquirer.net/125609/impaired-justice-system-leads-people-to-tulfo-justi

ce

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (n.d.) Jeremy Bentham. Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/jeremy-bentham/

Internet World Stats (2019). TOP 20 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF

INTERNET USERS. Internet World Stats.

https://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm

LibreTexts (2021). The Structure of Bentham’s Utilitarianism. LibreTexts Humanities.

https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Folsom_Lake_College/PHIL_300%3A_Introduct

ion_to_Philosophy_(Bauer)/07%3A_Ethics/7.01%3A_Utilitarianism/7.1.05%3A_The

_Structure_of_Benthams_Utilitarianism#:~:text=Bentham's%20utilitarian%20theory

%20is%20associated,%2C%20children%2C%20friends%20or%20enemies.

Maru, D. (2021). Pulse Asia: TV still main source of news in PH; use of radio, Internet grows.

ABS-CBN

News.https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/10/12/21/tv-is-still-top-news-source-among-fili

pinos-survey
Mateo, J. (2018). Philippines still world’s social media capital – study. The Philippine

Star.https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/02/03/1784052/philippines-still-worlds-

social-media-capital-study

Pinoy Stack Staff (2021). Raffy Tulfo In Action Is Not Court of Justice But A Business. Pinoy

Stack.

https://pinoystack.com/blog/social-media/raffy-tulfo-in-action-is-not-court-of-justice-

but-a-business/

Project Jurisprudence (2021) “The Law Requires Public Trial, Not Trial by

Publicity”https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2021/01/the-law-requires-public-trial

-not-trial-by-publicity.html

Raffy Tulfo in Action (n.d.) About. Raffy Tulfo in Action. https://raffytulfoinaction.com/about/

Redulla, J., Vargas, D., Estigoy, M. A. (2022). Perspectives of Lawyers/Legal Experts and

Heavy Viewers on Raffy Tulfo in Action.

SSRN.https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4186751

Schwartz, P. (2018). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.

Econlib.https://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML.html?chapter_num=5#bo

ok-reader