Columnist Ramon Tulfo reprimanded his siblings, former Department of Tourism (DOT) secretary Wanda Tulfo-Teo and TV host Ben Tulfo, for their involvement in the Php60-million DOT advertisement scandal.
Ramon called out Teo for failing “to get intelligent people as her staff.”
“They would have advised her against signing a contract with PTV 4 where Ben was a blocktimer. A blocktimer is not an organic member of a radio or TV station but one who pays for airtime,” Ramon’s Inquirer opinion article read.
He added that Teo was “clueless” about Ben’s eventual share of the ad money.
“She was clueless that Ben would get the lion’s share, so to speak, of the P60 million advertising contract. She was only following President Digong’s injunction for all Cabinet members to support PTV 4 which is a government network,” he added.
Meanwhile, Ramon said Ben has a “middle child syndrome” who “should have known better.”
He also referred Ben as the “black sheep” of the family.
He added that Ben, who earlier denied his involvement in the deal, will not own up to his mistakes.
“No amount of pleading from me when the uproar broke out could persuade Ben to admit it was his fault and not Wanda’s,” claimed Ramon.
“I am supporting Wanda’s fight to clear her name, but not Ben’s,” Ramon said.
The Commission on Audit (COA) questioned the release of Php60-million to the Tulfo brothers’ TV show during Teo’s term as DOT secretary.
The deal, which was divided into three payment schemes, P22.09 million in May, P18.96 million in November and another P18.96 million in December, lacked a memorandum of agreement or contract, COA said.
In defense, Teo said there was no conflict of interest in the deal since it happened between DOT and PTV 4, not between DOT and Kilos Pronto producers, Bitag Media Unlimited Inc (BMUI), which is also owned by the brothers.
The former tourism secretary added it was PTV 4’s decision to air the ads on her brothers’ show mainly due to its high ratings.
Ben Tulfo also gave a statement regarding the issue saying BMUI is working as “content provider for any network” and did not intervene in the deal between PTV and DOT.
