“The debate Sotto has provoked should serve as an opportunity not to silence or discredit journalists, but to strengthen the commitment of both the press and public officials to ethical practice and public trust”
THE recent clash between Pasig City Mayor Vico Sotto and veteran journalists Korina Sanchez and Julius Babao has ignited a nationwide conversation about the ethical boundaries of journalism in the Philippines.
Sotto drew attention to interviews conducted by Sanchez and Babao with Sarah and Curlee Discaya, contractors who later became political candidates.
In a social media post, he speculated that some media features might involve payments as high as ₱10 million.
While acknowledging that the figure was speculative, Sotto argued that the possibility alone should prompt reflection on why political aspirants would be willing to pay heavily for airtime. His concern was that such arrangements, if they exist, risk sanitizing reputations, undermining journalistic independence, and misleading the public.
Both Sanchez and Babao denied their features on the Discayas involved any payment.
Sanchez’s camp insisted her segment was a lifestyle feature, not political content, and that she was unaware of the couple’s plans to run for office.
Babao took a similar position, describing his interview as an ordinary feature detached from electoral politics.
Yet Sanchez’s team, in earlier statements, acknowledged that some interviews on her programs may involve payment structured as advertising, with receipts issued by the network. This admission has heightened scrutiny of the blurred line between paid promotional segments and legitimate editorial content.
The controversy has since grown beyond the initial personalities to a larger debate on media ethics.
Critics noted that both interviews presented the Discayas in a flattering light without addressing questions about their sudden wealth, government contracts, or political ambitions.
Retired journalist Chelo Banal-Formoso, among others, observed that obvious red flags were ignored.
I watched both Sanchez’s and Babao’s interviews in full.
It was painful and sad, as I had deep respect for these two veteran journalists.
What I saw and heard was revolting. These were not probing interviews. They resembled promotional segments designed to flatter and sanitize.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines has been clear on this matter.
It recently reminded practitioners that soliciting or accepting money, gifts, or favors in exchange for favorable coverage is a violation of core ethical standards.
NUJP stressed that such practices compromise editorial independence, erode public trust, and betray journalism’s role in a democracy.
While acknowledging financial pressures in news organizations, the NUJP emphasized that these cannot justify blurring the line between journalism and advertising.
Seen in this light, Sotto’s critique was less a personal attack than a legitimate call for accountability.
By asking why political aspirants would allegedly pay millions for airtime, he exposed what he called a “credibility economy” in which reputation can be bought and scrutiny becomes optional.
His clarification that the ₱10 million figure was speculative underscored his intent to provoke reflection, not to lodge a direct accusation.
I must disclose that Mayor Vico is a graduate of the Ateneo School of Government. He was my student there and later worked at the school when I was dean.
He is the real thing in terms of good governance. Along with his colleagues in the Mayors for Good Governance coalition, he represents the future of Philippine politics. His commitment to accountability is consistent and genuine.
Of course, Sanchez and Babao are entitled to defend their integrity.
The threat of cyberlibel from Sanchez’s camp, however, reflects the perils of wielding such a law against critics.
Journalists know too well how cyberlibel has been used to harass and silence them.
To invoke it now against legitimate commentary undermines their own struggle for press freedom.
That is a slippery slope they must avoid. In any case, many lawyers, including my law firm La Viña Zarate, stand ready to defend Sotto.
At its core, this controversy is not simply about one mayor and two journalists.
It is about the ethical foundations of the press in a democracy.
Journalism’s duty is to inform, to question, and to hold power accountable.
When media platforms, knowingly or not, provide uncritical coverage of figures with political or financial clout, they risk eroding public trust.
By drawing attention to this issue, Sotto has reaffirmed that media ethics is not an abstract principle but a concrete safeguard for democratic accountability.
The debate he has provoked should serve as an opportunity not to silence or discredit journalists, but to strengthen the commitment of both the press and public officials to ethical practice and public trust.
For this, we should thank Mayor Vico.
Facebook, X, Instagram, and BlueSky: tonylavs Website: tonylavina.com
