P49 million down the drain?

IF THE Department of Tourism is now in the crosshairs of critics, it’s not for a flimsy reason.

not recommend it since its approval or denial is purely left to the discretion of the court, and may be denied outright.

Extensions of time

Extensions of time may be allowed in the Court of Appeals before the filing of a Petition for Review or in the Supreme Court before the filing of a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Appeal by Certiorari) (see Section 1, Rule 42; Section 4, Rule 43; and Section 2, Rule 45).

However, no such extensions are allowed for ordinary appeals such as a notice of appeal or a record on appeal.

It is worth noting that once the court records are elevated to the Court of Appeals, an extension of time to file a brief may be allowed “for good and sufficient cause, and only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended” (Section 12, Rule 44).

There are no provisions for criminal cases at the trial court level on motions for extension both in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the 2017 Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases. This is because the major stages of a criminal proceeding such as arraignment and plea, pre-trial, and trial have limited court filings.

In case a party files a meritorious motion in a criminal case, the adverse party shall file his or her comment within a non-extendible period of 10 days counted from notice or receipt of the order to file the same (see III 2(c), 2017

Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases).

Similar to appeals in civil cases, the period to file ordinary appeals in criminal cases cannot be extended; however, the filing of briefs at the Court of Appeals may be extended for “good and sufficient cause” (Section 5, Rule 124).

Extensions of time may be allowed in Petitions for Review in criminal cases, similar to Rule 42 as used in civil cases (Section 3, Rule 122).

Postponements

In civil cases, motions for postponement are not allowed, except if these are based on acts of God, force majeure, or the physical inability of the witness to appear and testify.

“If the motion is granted based on such exceptions, the moving party shall be warned that the presentation of its evidence must still be terminated on the dates previously agreed upon (during pre-trial)” (Section 12(f), Rule 15).

“A motion for postponement, whether written or oral shall… be accompanied by the original official receipt from the office of the clerk of court evidencing payment of the postponement fee… [which is] to be submitted either at the time of the filing of said motion or not later than the next hearing date” (Section 12, Rule 15).

The original grounds of illness of a party or counsel to postpone a trial was retained in the 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure so long as “the presence of such party or counsel at the trial is indispensable and that the character of his or her illness is such as to render his or her nonattendance excusable” (Section 3, Rule 30).

The same Rule on postponements apply to criminal cases as stated in III, 2(d) of the 2017 Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases.

Interestingly, the provisions in the 2019 Civil Procedure on postponement were lifted verbatim from the said Guidelines and reiterated in the Pre-Trial Rules in Section 7, Rule 18.

These Rules on calendar of cases, extensions of time, and postponements must be carefully observed by lawyers in order not to prejudice or harm the interest of their clients.

It is always best that cases be resolved based on its merits and not because of procedural or technical errors.

The long and the short of it, from the available data gathered from news reports, is that the DOT has tapped an advertising agency that seems to have resorted to short-cuts in producing a video that’s supposed to drum up interest by tourists primarily from abroad to visit the country.

The short-cuts, they turn out, consisted of using ready-made footage of tourist attractions in other countries, among them Thailand, Indonesia, and Dubai, rather than actual shots of local tourist attractions.

And what’s bad is that the advertising agency tried to explain this by saying that it’s just a “mood video,” whatever that is, instead of an official one that would be shown worldwide.

And more: they claim to have done it on their own, out of love of country, and without even getting a single centavo from the government.

But the DOT said the choice of the ad agency was the outcome of a “competitive bidding.”

The resulting public outcry over P49 million (P50 million was the first figure mentioned) that had been initially mentioned as the cost of the video production prompted the DOT to throw the ad agency under the bus presumably to save its own skin.

Perhaps a congressional investigation in aid of legislation will allow the public to sift fact from fiction, or the truth from falsehood

There’s more: The DOT is likely to throw good money after bad as netizens revealed that the agency will spend a total of P300 million to sell the country abroad with its “Love the Philippines” slogan. The slogan itself has been slammed by various quarters as trite and uninspiring, and therefore unlovable.