See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/363201132

Perspectives of Lawyers/Legal Experts and Heavy Viewers on Raffy Tulfo in

Action

Article in SSRN Electronic Journal · January 2022

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4186751

CITATIONS READS
0 3,070

3 authors:

Jermilyn Redulla Danilo Vargas

Central Luzon State University CORE Gateway College Incorporated
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Maria Adrielle S Estigoy

Central Luzon State University
13 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Danilo Vargas on 05 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Perspectives of Lawyers/Legal Experts and Heavy Viewers on Raffy Tulfo in Action

Jermilyn A.Redulla1, Danilo S. Vargas2, Maria Adrielle S. Estigoy3

Central Luzon State University1

Central Luzon State University2
Central Luzon State University3

redulla.jermilyn@clsu2.edu.ph1, dsvargas@clsu.edu.ph2,
mariaadrielleestigoy@clsu.edu.ph3

Abstract

This study aimed to determine and assess the perceptions of legal professionals and
heavy viewers regarding the program Raffy Tulfo in Action .The study adopted a
qualitative research design, specifically a case study that required an in-depth interview for
each participant. The population was selected through purposive sampling and all the
processes in data gathering were conducted online .In terms of conflict resolution, this
section discusses how the procedure or process of the host in resolving the cases. The
respondents favored the show's impartiality in cross-examination and efficiency in
resolving disputes. Most of the program's episodes are smoothly solved because of the
process of negotiating or settlement for both parties and this would become the people’s
attraction to solve their issues faster instead of bringing them to court.Controversial issues
discuss the respondents’ opinions about the controversial or sensitive issues being
presented to the public. The respondent's views are both positive and negative as they both
acknowledge that the presented cases are entertaining and inappropriate for televising and
broadcast. In terms of public service, is the assistance given by the program from both
parties and its viewers. The respondents view the financial assistance for aggrieved parties
and the integration of legal insights and concepts within the show as helpful for the parties
involved and the viewers. It shows that the Raffy Tulfo in Action has improved the public
knowledge of the legal system or they are educating the public at the same time helpful for
financial, this may be because this reality program is different from scripted programs,
while is still helpful, knowledgeable and have an entertainment value.In terms of the
perceptions of the respondents on Raffy Tulfo in Action, this explains the general
perceptions of how they viewed the program, including their stands on the show. In
contrast, few dissenting opinions have viewed the inappropriateness and partiality of the
host in dealing with controversial issues in conflict resolution. The show also humiliates
defending parties, subjecting them to criticism, and trial by publicity.

Keywords: perspective,conflict resolution,public service,tabloid arbitration; settling

disputes; instant justice

vii
 1

Introduction

Television shows are considered a normal part of a person's modern life since the TV
was invented. With the invention of the internet and social media, shows have been
integrated into these platforms. However, some genres had seen a significant rise in today's
trends despite being on the TV genre list for decades: tabloid talk shows. Tabloid talk
shows revolve around controversial and sometimes taboo topics on-air. The genre saw its
origins in the 1960s and has since then evolved into a "cheap" daytime show that centralizes
itself on discussion and commentary through interviews of personalities or persons of
interest (Gregori-Signes, 2000). Some variations of the talk show resemble those of the
arbitration-based reality court shows. Arbitration shows or reality courtroom shows had
found their place in American and British television through the “exploitation” of the
courtroom’s dramatic antics into mass media. Examples like Judge Judy, the People’s
Court, and the like have regularly accumulated 5 million views in their run time and have
impacted the TV industry (Wood, 2018).
In the local setting, media conglomerates have also integrated tabloid-arbitration
shows into regular programming. Arguably, the most famous program for the genre in
Filipino TV is TV5’s Face-to-Face. Hosted by Amy Perez, this show cemented itself
among the Filipino classics. With its unique theme, format, and overall controversiality,
the program earned the moniker “Barangay Hall on Air” (Tabernero, 2013). With over 900
episodes, Face-to-Face lasted a 3-year stint from 2010-to 2013. Since then, several similar
titles aired, such as Face the People and T3 Reload, among others. Furthermore, with the
rise of social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube, the tabloid-arbitration genre
appeared again for mass consumption through Raffy Tulfo in Action. It had evolved from
Tulfo’s long-existing radio segment Wanted sa Radyo into a YouTube channel, Facebook
page, and an official website that champions public service by acting on citizen complaints
(Raffy Tulfo in Action, n.d.). Tulfo’s network of official social media accounts currently
has 19.5 million subscribers and 17 million followers on YouTube and Facebook,
respectively.
Tabloid-arbitration shows' public and controversial nature come with varying views,
opinions, and discussions regarding their implications and effects on mass media
consumption. In the foreign setting of reality court shows, experts have voiced their
opinions about their antics. Syndi-court shows are TV segments focused on settling
disputes, whether through a courtroom simulation or tabloid formats. These shows have
encapsulated the courtroom's drama into a digestible 30-minute format, appealing to the
masses. But this comes with disturbing effects as their notion of the courtroom without any
disclaimer of their show is unrelated to the actual legal system and bends the audience's
perspective of law and justice (Kimball, 2005). Other studies suggest the controversial
shows as agents of societal change. Reality TV can induce audience modeling and set on
its viewers what is socially essential or socially relevant. With their continuous growth,
cultural discourse also increases, which ensues behavioral and psychological effects. All
these suggest that the TV genre permits societal change (Vogel, 2012).
 2

In retrospect, Raffy Tulfo in Action received several editorials and articles venting their
sentiments on the program’s antics. According to Lao (2019), Tulfo has become the face
of the Philippine Justice System. “Papa-tulfo Kita!”(I’ll bring you to Tulfo) has made its
way into our vernacular and has suggested that the program developed into a center for
instant justice. Quianzon (2019) wrote, “Tulfo in Action is all about trial by publicity, with
people hoping that sending their complaints to their center will solve their problems faster
than filing a case to the town hall.”

Objectives of the Study

The following are the objectives of the study:

1. To determine the opinion of participants and heavy viewers of Raffy Tulfo in

Action program in terms of conflict resolution, commentary on controversial issues, and
public service and aid;
2. To describe the perceptions of legal professionals and viewers regarding the
program;
 3

Scope and Limitations

The variables focused on are the show's procedures that concern conflict resolution,
controversial commentary, and public service. The researcher is also focused on the overall
perceptions of the participants on the show. The participants of the study are lawyers/legal
experts and heavy viewers of the show in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. This study was
carried out beginning with the first semester of A.Y. 2021-2022. In accordance and
compliance with the quarantine protocols enforced across the locality, physical interaction
is impossible due to our current situation. Therefore, virtual means of acquiring participants
and conducting interviews were employed.

Review of Related Literature

Content Analysis of Reality Arbitration Shows

According to Timberg & Erler (2010), the Television talk show is a creation of
twentieth-century broadcasting, which is focused on news, and drama and become the site
of entertainment. This social impact of TV talk shows received widespread attention for
over a decade now and has been accepted by viewers. Despite the rise of Television shows,
some genres had seen a significant rise in today’s trends and emphasize controversial topics
on-air; tabloid talk shows, and reality courtroom shows. Allen and Thompson (2019)’
writing for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a Television genre called audience-participation
talk show or known as “tabloid talk show” become very popular and had grown more
diverse since the early days of television, the host would conversationally present a topic
and introducing guest and invite audiences as a member of the shows.
In the book, Law, and Justice on the Small Screen, Terzic (2012, p. 271) analyzed
the contents of Judge Judy, a Cyndi-court show based in the United States. In the discussion
of viewership and levels of concentration, the chapter posited the contents of the program
as ‘interactive’ as it requires the viewers to observe and decide cases in their homes as
jurors. The study has found that heavy viewers of reality shows watched documentary films
with full immersion, remembering details non-heavy viewers tend to miss. The ‘Art of
Persuasion’ is also included in the chapter as Terzic discussed how a communicator intends
to convey to his receivers, particularly on the television set. In the show, the arbitrator is
portrayed as a 'paragon' figure, often pitted by the honorifics and respect displayed in the
show. This persuasion is a non-coercive form of influence, forming a sense of believability
around the arbitrator that attracts the viewers.
In another similar literature, Porsdam (2019, p. 42) discussed The People’s Court.
The study found the show’s feature of small-scale disputes through binding arbitration
methods such that in a courthouse, simulating legal procedures within household TV sets.
Opposite to the real courts, the show poses both factual and fictional elements which hit
the masses and made the arbitrators folk heroes; similar to the findings from the previously
 4

reviewed study. The show also used direct persuasion to its audience as evidenced by the
court reporter Doug Llewelyn’s signature outro “Remember, if you’re involved in a dispute
with another party and you can’t work it out, don’t take the law into your own hands. You
take them to The People’s Court!”

Effects of Reality Arbitration Shows

The effect of reality arbitration court shows to society today is public humiliation.
Trial by publicity remains the sentence for people accused in arbitration shows. According
to McKown (2015), this feature from reality TV shows is to be expected since it is not
legally binding and enforced, opposite to official and legal rulings from courts. This
provides the producers and arbitrators within the show the room to publicly try and decide
issues and disputes. But to a surprise, there are underlying reasons why 'defendants' and
'plaintiffs televised disputes rather than closed courtroom procedures. Several segments
similar to Raffy Tulfo in Action offer the parties forum shopping or their prerogative to
choose which place their case can be heard, giving them the most favorable outcome
according to their point of view. Additionally, court shows do not cause procedural fees,
unlike the official court system, and unofficial courts do not show on any civil records
which may damage a party’s standing. In these cases, it ensures an effect that leads most
disputes towards publicity rather than privacy despite the public humiliation outlined in the
show's feature.
According to Krakus (2012), Cyndi-court and arbitration shows provide emphasis
on personal aspects and elements rather than the facts of the case, shaping legal dimensions
for personal problems. Also, another effect of the judicial TV genre cited by Krakus (2012)
is the use of emotion for defense. In a regular court setup, the order is constantly
maintained, commonly anticipated by the judge, and the order among the court audience.
This compliance to the rules of the court promotes objectivity and prevents bias among
arbiters, be it judges or the audience. But in a televised setup where publicity and drama
are constantly promoted, arbiters let the parties and even the audience talk, which warps
the perception of the viewers away from objectivity and into intuition.

Methodology

This study employs a qualitative research design, specifically a case study.

The population of this study was selected through purposive sampling. The study’s
participants are from Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. Lawyers, paralegals, other legal experts,
and heavy-volume audiences of the show were selected for this study since they would be
knowledgeable informants. 5 legal/paralegal practitioners and 10 heavy viewers of the
show were interviewed to give valuable data for the study. The interview was conducted
through online video chat to avoid face-to-face interaction and prevent the spread of
coronavirus disease since the face-to-face interview is not allowed in the process of data
collection. Questions were asked to the respondents and their answers, as well as their
information, are anonymous to maintain privacy and confidentiality.
 5

In the analysis of transcribed data from the in-depth interviews, the researcher used
thematic content analysis to determine, analyze, organize, and describe the common
themes of participant responses (Nowell et al., 2017) All the information was analyzed and
presented fairly by exploring similarities and differences between different perceptions of
the participants and clearly understand the whole information gathered in the study.

Ethics Statement

Television shows and internet-streamed contents are prevalent today and can
influence people through both news and entertainment, and people need to be
knowledgeable about what these media portray. It is important for all the viewers to be
more mindful and have an awareness of the media they consume because it creates an
impact on how they see things. Hence, the researcher wants to determine the answers to
the following research questions and all the participants who are involved in this study will
receive informed consent that protects their privacy. It is important to have a full
understanding of anyone who is involved in the study. Communication creates good
connections with the respondents and this process means helping potential participants to
decide.
The researcher studied the ethical issues that may encounter during the whole
process of the research study. Thus, all ethical principles will be applied. The researcher
makes sure that all data and findings will be presented with all honesty and that there is no
manipulation involved, furthermore, the privacy of the participants will remain
confidential.

Results and Discussion

The respondents of this study were comprised of 10 heavy viewers of the program
Raffy Tulfo in Action and 5 legal experts. They range in age from 21-61 years old. In terms
of sex, 10 participants who were interviewed are male and 5 are female, it can be implied
that the majority of the respondents were male. In the viewers’ category, 3 of them are
college students, 2 of them are housewives, 2 tricycle drivers, 2 teachers, and 1 seafarer. 4
of the respondents in this category were almost watching the program every day, and 4 of
them watched it on an average of 2-4 times a week, while 2 of them watched it only if the
topics are interesting and trending. All of them describe themselves as heavy viewers
because they watch it often.
Legal experts, 2 of the respondents are lawyers, 2 paralegals, and 1 legal researcher.
All 5 legal experts describe themselves as having good education experiences/backgrounds
as part of their professions. However, they identified themselves as they rarely watched the
program Raffy Tulfo in Action. During in-depth interviews, all the respondents state their
perceptions and opinions regarding the program Raffy Tulfo in Action and they answer the
questions that need to address the research problem.
 6

Results

THEME 1: Opinions on Raffy Tulfo in Action

The first category discusses the perspectives of viewers and legal experts on the
features of RTA. Respondents are asked for their opinion on the following:

1.1 Conflict resolution

The first characteristic of RTA as a reality arbitrary show is the use of typical
negotiation or settlement procedures, particularly asking or examining both parties. The
tabulated responses are coded as follows:

Opinions on the show regarding the host's procedures for resolving conflicts and
disputes.

VIEWERS
P1 Impartiality in the examination, de-escalation of issue
P2 The program examines parties and turns them over to the barangay, if not the courts
P3 Helpful to poor people who can’t hire counsel
P4 Impartiality in the examination, efficient without bringing to the courts
P5 Impartial in the examination, avoid a hassle in courts, consults legal advisers
P6 Procedures to reconcile parties
While the program has legal advisers, the host sometimes says inappropriate words to
P7
urge the defendant into the examination.
P8 Resolutions are simple and avoid a hassle in courts
P9 Procedures to reconcile parties, efficient in examination and conflict resolution
P10 Efficient in resolution, consults lawyers in negotiations
LEGAL EXPERTS

P11 While the program assists in problems, they are still not trained in law. Bluff.

P12 Program result of expense of taking issues to court

P13 Efficient in resolving issues
P14 Interesting procedures, impartial and transparent, has legal advise
 7

Incomplete resolutions, lack the force of law, no proper appreciation of evidence

P15
presented, only surmises and testimonies

Table 1.1 Responses to Interview Question 1

The responses from the viewers and legal practitioners are almost general.
Respondents have noted that the conflict resolution of RTA is impartial and efficient. They
have indicated that during cross-examinations of an issue, the host maintained a neutral
behavior and consulted with legal experts for advice. The respondents have also noted that
the program’s conflict resolution generally prevents the hassles if it to the courts; this was
considered helpful for financially challenged parties who can't proceed to court and hire
counsel.
However, there are different opinions on the general answers of the respondents.
P7 responded that while the host seeks legal advice on issues, he sometimes says
inappropriate words, which forces the defendant to testify during cross-examination.P11
also told that the host is not trained in the law, which endangers the parties.

P11. “It is good that there is a program that assists with problems from simple
infringes of rights, denial of benefits, deprivation, etc. It is good that there's a
program like that because it helps people to resolve some of their problems. Only
when it comes to legal issues and legal scrutinizing there's seem to be lacking
expertise because RTA is not trained in the law, he immersed in police
procedures. For example, he uses some threatening lines against the person
being accused of a certain offense. Just like a teacher who posted on Facebook,
and not only that case. He is going to renounce licenses and going to fire this
person, of course, everyone knows he doesn't have any right to do that, there's a
procedure to do that. For example, the teacher has threatening lines that to
deprive the teacher teaching license and that's not simple to do, it gives some
hope of expectancy some sort of bluffing to the public. It appeared that RTA is
the one-stop solution, you call him and he gives solutions and everything, it's not
the program's power to shut down businesses by removing a license, it is a bluff”.

Similarly, P15 mentioned that the resolutions were incomplete due to the lack of force of
law and the improper appreciation of evidence.

P15. “The resolution is incomplete as it lacks the force of law which legally
obligates the parties to comply therewith. There is no proper appreciation of
evidence presented as the guests tend to base their claims on mere surmises and
testimonies”.
 8

1.2 Commentary on controversial issues

The second characteristic of the program represents controversial issues presented
by the host. The tabulated responses are coded as follows:

Opinions on the show in terms of its commentary and opinions towards controversial
issues.

VIEWERS

P1 Issues are popular, and virality esp. with celebrities and gov’t officials

P2 Issues are common but controversial, viral, and entertaining

Issues are entertaining, funny, and attention-grabbing. Sometimes, RTA procedures
P3 against law (exposing in camera)

P4 Issues are controversial, and not good, especially for internet-exposed children
Issues are interesting, entertaining, and attention-grabbing. Although some are
P5 inappropriate to televise, trial by publicity.
Controversial issues grab viewers and attend to cases that cannot be heard in the courts,
P6 even though parties will be criticized.
The program is unfair and hastily accuses a particular defendant of alerting the
P7 authorities without substantial proof.
Issues are very interesting, entertaining, and sometimes serious. Some are not good due
P8 to trial by publicity

P9 Publicizing issues is not good even if the parties are guilty. However, it is entertaining.

P10 Not all issues should be publicized, some should be given to authorities

LEGAL EXPERTS
Issues are often about negligence and deprivation of support. Should not be resolved
P11
on radio and TV, should be brought to the courts
Issues should be taken with care, not prejudice. Parties should hold the program should
P12
they have illegal actions.
Issues are controversial and make parties say inappropriateness, increasing the program
P13
more viral.
Issues are controversial and viral, although some are inappropriate. The host sometimes
P14 speaks ill of the defendant. While defendants have the right to refuse arbitration, they
are criticized publicly and on air.
 9

Some issues are quite sensitive, and should not be televised. Other issues could have
P15
been settled in barangay without media exposure

Table 1.2 Responses to Interview Question 2

The responses to this question can be considered general. Almost all respondents
have recognized the controversiality and virality of the issues presented in the program,
which makes it entertaining for the viewers. The respondents also acknowledged the
inappropriateness of some issues being televised on the program. Specifically, P7 has
mentioned the unfairness of the program by hastily accusing the teacher of violations and
threatening them with the loss of their teaching license.
Most legal practitioners have noted that parties should have given their disputes to
the courts or concerned authorities as the program’s antics subject them to trial by publicity
and media exposure.

1.3 Public service and aid

The third and most notable characteristic of the program is the financial assistance
and aid to its viewers. The tabulated answers are coded as follows:

Opinions on the show in terms of its public service and aid to its viewers.

VIEWERS
P1 Intentions to help poor people and educates them on legal matters

P2 Not just for conflict resolution, and legal views, but also for assistance to victims

P3 Also informative is, the need to control content creation for the privacy of parties

P4 Helps give justice to people, entertaining as it is legally educational

P5 Helpful in resolution, financial assistance, legal education

P6 Educational to viewers, assistance should they carry it to the courts

While the program assists victims, it tends to be partial. Should only mediate, not
P7 accuse

P8 The program assists victims and brings justice, is like an online legal class

P9 Helps people to resolve issues without bringing them to the courts

P10 The host resolves issues quickly and brings legal views
 10

LEGAL EXPERTS
Good that they assist victims, but the “politics” of the program is undeniable, exploiting
P11
controversies. Gives assistance and support.
Program’s financial and legal aid a holistic approach to help them aggrieved because
P12
of poverty
P13 Program as efficient in assisting parties, financial aids
Very helpful, financial assistance. Viewers gain knowledge, topics are realistic and
P14
interesting
The program informs on human rights and some aspects of the law. However, it
P15 humiliates guests, also not informed of the repercussions of televising, which may lead
to self-incrimination

Table 1.3 Responses to Interview Question 3

The responses to this interview question are almost general. The show
characteristically helps the parties involved, especially the aggrieved, through financial
assistance and legal assistance to take escalated issues to the courts. The respondents also
noted that the show commits to public service through speedy and efficient disposition and
providing legal education to its viewers.
However, there are two dissenting opinions on the matter as P7 and P15 noted that
the host is partial to service in favor of the aggrieved petitioners.

P15. “The program provides its viewers with basic information about their human
rights and some aspects of the law. However, it humiliates the guests, especially
the ones being accused by the complaining parties. The guests are not also
informed of the repercussions of the statements they will utter on television, which
eventually may be used against them”.
 11

THEME 2: Perceptions of Raffy Tulfo in Action

The second category and the last interview question discuss the overall perspectives
of viewers and legal practitioners on RTA, as well as their stance toward the show. The
tabulated answers from the respondents are coded as follows:

Question 4: How do you perceive the show? Are you for or against it?

VIEWERS
P1 Pro. The program is legally educational and helps conflict resolution among courts
Pro. Legally educational related to issues presented helps financially challenged
P2 victims

P3 Pro. Helps poor people who can’t hire counsel

Pro. Justice is hardly met in the legal system esp. poor people, RTA offers a solution,
P4 educates on issues, impartial
Pro. The program helped participants in knowing the laws and helps poor people to
P5 achieve justice.
Pro. Enlightens viewers on what to do with issues. Program is continuous in helping
P6 even during the pandemic
Anti. While they help and assist, they should just mediate as they are not part of the
P7 legal system.

P8 Pro. The program is informative and helpful to people

P9 Pro. Addresses the inefficiency of the government in resolving issues.

P10 Pro. They consult with legal experts to educate viewers and resolve issues.

LEGAL EXPERTS
Pro. The program procedure is simple, not even in law. Still, there is something to learn
P11
in the program about reconciliation.
Pro, helpful in arbitration, helps the justice system to resolve issues. It should be
P12
supported by the state as long as it does not violate the law.
P13 Pro. It helps the people and it is entertaining.
Pro. Program is very important, and efficient in resolution. So long that they do not
P14
violate defendants and their rights, not subject them to prejudice.
 12

P15 Anti. There are more proper venues to voice concerns such as authorities.

Table 1.4 Responses to Interview Question 4

13 out of 15 respondents have positive stands on RTA. Agreeing respondents have

noted the show's efficiency, impartiality, and charity towards aggrieved and financially
challenged parties. The respondents have also pointed out that the show helps the justice
system address disputes. Lastly, the show also provides legal insights and concepts for its
avid viewers.
However, dissenting opinions from P7 and P15 have stated that the show failed to
remain impartial and is generally an inappropriate venue for conflict resolution.

P15. “I am against the program because there are more proper venues for
Filipinos to air out their concerns, may it among themselves, before the
barangay, or other authorities”.

To specifically note, all legal practitioner-respondents, while mainly for the program,
indicated that RTA should not violate the party's right.

Discussion

In the discussion, the results generally favored the host and procedures done within
Raffy Tulfo in Action. The respondents view the program as helpful for parties and
financially challenged individuals seeking help. This is to say that Raffy Tulfo in Action
becomes the people’s venue for help and legal assistance given by the service of the
program. Also, one of the most advantages of this segment is the online sharing of
knowledge about legal matters among different groups of people.
In terms of conflict resolution, this section discusses how the procedure or process
of the host in resolving the cases. The respondents favored the show's impartiality in cross-
examination and efficiency in resolving disputes. Most of the program's episodes are
smoothly solved because of the process of negotiating or settlement for both parties and
this would become the people’s attraction to solve their issues faster instead of bringing
them to court. According to Del Cusay (2019), a lot of Filipinos chose this program to
solve their problems on-air and skip the due process because it is faster than filling it to the
court which took months or years to solve.
Controversial issues discuss the respondents’ opinions about the controversial or
sensitive issues being presented to the public. The respondent's views are both positive and
negative as they both acknowledge that the presented cases are entertaining and
inappropriate for televising and broadcast. Also, Qusay (20219) states that the issues
presented especially inappropriate issues in the program have caused damage to the
reputation of the defendants which is not appropriate. Although it is entertaining for some
of the viewers it creates an impact on the accused. In addition to that, the reality arbitration
 13

shows genre is unscripted which makes it more popular with the people because it is
somehow realistic for entertainment (Essany, 2013; Ramdhany, 2012). While in the article
of Aleksandra Kocelko (2011), the reality genre becomes a more interesting and dramatic
trial in TV shows like Law and Order in American TV shows, similarly to the segment of
Raffy Tulfo in Action. However, Cusay (2019) says that even when the issues are finally
solved on air, the public humiliations were still placed on the social media world that can
be viewed by its massive audiences anytime and anywhere. It prolonged the effect of the
issues just like in Raffy Tulfo in Action program.
Lastly, in terms of public service, is the assistance given by the program from both
parties and its viewers. The respondents view the financial assistance for aggrieved parties
and the integration of legal insights and concepts within the show as helpful for the parties
involved and the viewers. It shows that the Raffy Tulfo in Action has improved the public
knowledge of the legal system or they are educating the public at the same time helpful for
financial, this may be because this reality program is different from scripted programs,
while is still helpful, knowledgeable and have an entertainment value. On the other side,
Aleksandra Kocelko (2011) also states, that this kind of reality show holds viewers and
keeps them entertained because this program makes money, similarly to the answer of P11
on the Raffy Tulfo in Action, they earned from the viewers/people, it helps the people and
they give back to the people.
In terms of the perceptions of the respondents on Raffy Tulfo in Action, this
explains the general perceptions of how they viewed the program, including their stands
on the show. In contrast, few dissenting opinions have viewed the inappropriateness and
partiality of the host in dealing with controversial issues in conflict resolution. The show
also humiliates defending parties, subjecting them to criticism, and trial by publicity. The
article “The Law Requires Public Trial, Not Trial by Publicity” of Project Jurisprudence
(2021), states that each citizen of the country has the right to equal protection and due
process as written in the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution. Lastly, the dissenting
respondents view the lack of force and protection of the laws as endangerment to
individuals seeking help in the program.
 14

Conclusion

After the analysis of transcribed data, it was concluded that the legal professionals and
heavy viewers of Raffy Tulfo in Action have different perspectives on the show.
Legal professionals find the show’s conflict resolution, commentary on controversial
issues, and public service and aid conflicting, while the viewers may view them as
beneficial.
Legal professionals may also have a negative stand regarding the show, while the
viewers may have a positive stand.

Recommendation

The following are the recommendation of the researcher:

1. For the viewers, it is more important to know what the program portrays as they have
both positive and negative sides.
2. For aggrieved parties, it is important to become aware of where their cases must be
in to resolve their conflict and disputes. Other barangays and local government units/public
attorney’s offices can help too with legal assistance and due process.
3. For the defendants, it is important to know their rights, especially by the public
humiliation presents by the program. They have the right to remain silent and to protect
their rights to public/media exposure.
4. For other researchers, for them to continue the study and gives focus on another topic
that was discussed in this paper.

References

Allen, S., and Thompson, Robert J. (2019, July 1). Television in the United States.
Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/art/television-in-the-
United- States

Kocelko, A. (2011). The Effect of Legal Television Shows On the Trial Process.
https://dra.american.edu/islandora/object/1011capstones:4/datastream/PDF/view

Cusay, D. (2019). The Tulfo Justice and Why That Should Bother Us.
https://www.delcusay.com/2019/11/the-tulfo-justice-and-why-that-should.html

Essany, M. (2013). Reality check: The business and art of producing reality TV.
Burlington, MA: Focal Press.

Essany, M. (2013). Reality check: The business and art of producing reality TV.
Routledge.
 15

Gregori-Signes, C. (2000). The tabloid talk show is a quasi-conversational type of face-

to-face interaction. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International
Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 10(2), 195–213.
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.2.02gre

Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2017). What is a case study? Evidence-Based Nursing, 21(1),
7–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102845

Hernandez, E. (2012, May). Using Cultivation Theory to Analyze College Student

Attitudes about the Dating Process Following Exposure to Romantic Films. Texas
Tech University. https://ttu-
ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2346/45233/HERNANDEZ-THESIS.pdf?sequence=2

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

Kimball, P. (2005). Syndi-Court Justice: Judge Judy and Exploitation of Arbitration.

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN ARBITRATION, 4(1), 1.
https://arbitrationlaw.com/library/syndi-court-justice-judge-judy-and-exploitation-
arbitration-journal-american-arbitration-jaa

Krakus, A. (2012). I Hereby Find You Guilty of Cheating: How Television Judges Give
Personal Problems Legal Dimensions. In Intersections of Law and Culture (pp.
50–65). Palgrave Macmillan Socio-Legal Studies.

Lao, G. (2019, November 11). The Tulfos is the face of Philippine Justice, and that
should bother us. ABS-CBN News. https://news.abs-
cbn.com/ancx/culture/spotlight/11/10/19/the-tulfos-are-the-face-of-philippine-
justice-and-that-should-bother-us

Lin, C. A. (1999). Uses and gratifications. Clarifying communication theories, 199-208.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325673264

McKown, M. (2015). From the Stocks to Handcuffs, to Hollywood: An Analysis of

Public Humiliation in Judge Judy’s Syndi-court. Journal of Public Law and
Policy, 36(2), 1–20.
https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=j
plp

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 160940691773384.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
 16

Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. L. (2007). An exploratory study of reality appeal:

Uses and gratifications of reality TV shows. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 51(2), 355-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150701307152

Podlas, K. (2004). As Seen on TV: The Normative Influence of Syndi-Court on

Contemporary Litigiousness. Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports L. 1–47.
https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&cont
ext=mslj

Porsdam, H. (2019). Television Judge Shows Rights Talk and Popular Culture. The
Transforming Power of Cultural Rights, 39–64.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108580182.003

Quianzon, S. (2019, November 26). “Trial by publicity” is not how the Philippine
Constitution works. Canto. https://canto.ph/trial-by-publicity-is-not-how-the-
philippine-constitution-works/

Raffy Tulfo in Action | About. (n.d.). Raffy Tulfo in Action. Retrieved April 15, 2021,
from https://www.raffytulfoinaction.com/about/

Robinson, R. (Ed.). (2014). Purposive Sampling. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and

Well-Being Research. Published. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5

Shrum, L. J. (2017). Cultivation theory: Effects and underlying processes. The

international encyclopedia of media effects, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0040

Tabernero, G. P. (2013). Ang Marhinalisasyon, at potensyal na kapangyarihan ng mga

konstrak ng pagkababae na nakapaloob sa programang Face to Face (Master’s
Thesis).AnimoRepository. https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/4576/

Terzic, M. (2012). Judge Judy: Constructions of ‘Justice with an Attitude’. In Law and
Justice on a Small Screen (pp. 271–288). Hart Publishing.

Timberg, B. M., & Erler, R. J. (2010). Television talk: A history of the TV talk show.
University of Texas Press.

Vogel, R. (2012). To Teach and to Please: Reality TV as an Agent of Societal Change

(Thesis). Boston College. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/151481977.pdf

Wood, H. (2018). FromJudge Judy to Judge Rinder and Judge Geordie: humor, emotion
and ‘televisual legal consciousness.’ International Journal of Law in Context,
14(4), 581–595. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744552318000253

View publication stats