President Duterte insists that there is no corruption in his government, because (1) just a whiff of corruption and you’re out, (2) there is transparency, and (3) there is an anti-corruption agency — that can even look into his bank accounts if they want (he of course appointed the people in that commission, so really).

But there are many instances in which this has been proven questionable, in fact many instances in which Duterte’s own people discredit the President’s pronouncements, not just because they are not held accountable, but also because they are far from being transparent. We could be talking about Wanda Teo and how she has brushed off even a major complaint against her by DoT employees — officially received and stamped by the Office of the President from June 2017. But it could also be as simple as Liza Diño, chairperson of the Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP), who cannot for the life of her respond properly to valid criticism and questions about her leadership and projects. 

This time, it’s about Year 2 of an unexplained and generally unnecessary Pista ng Pelikulang Pilipino film festival.

Some context is in order: last year, Diño launched this project for no reason other than she could, and I thought that at least it was a way for people to see films they might have missed in other festivals before then — never mind that it was happening at around the same time as Cinemalaya which meant demanding of filmgoers to spend thousands just to “support” local films. Last year, my issue was lack of transparency: film entries were being made to pay thousands to even be considered for PPP, and there was a major Globe-produced film in a festival that was also co-presented by Globe.

This was … strange, to say the least.

For one thing: FDCP is a government-funded agency that is supposed to support local filmmakers. Why are films then being made to pay to join a festival that filmmakers have already technically spent on with their taxes? There is also something unethical about a film sponsored by Globe, becoming part of a festival that it co-presents. And what does “co-presenting” mean? Does Globe put out money for the festival? At what cost, and towards what end? While we’re at it, how much does SM earn from screening these local films?

In October 2017, I requested through the Freedom of Information portal a breakdown of expenses and earnings, as well as the framework for, the PPP. Seven months since, and nothing.

This week, filmmaker Giancarlo Abrahan asked on social media why it was that the second installment of PPP is suddenly only for local films that are holding their “Philippine premieres” — excluding films that have come out in other festivals like Cinema One and Cinemalaya. It’s a valid question, because this is after all a project of FDCP, which should be at the service of filmmakers, and which justified the PPP last year by saying that it would provide an opportunity for independent films to be released in mainstream cinemas.

Diño replied to Abrahan, saying that they did call for a producers meeting on April 5, which was attended by 40 producers, where they discussed these new rules and no one pointed out the problem with only screening films that were doing their Philippine premieres, so they proceeded with the new rule. There would also apparently be a “special features” section for films that have already premiered in the Philippines.

Two things about this reply from Diño: (1) Why did she think speaking to film producers was the way to go? Shouldn’t she have spoken to filmmakers themselves? and (2) How could 40 producers decide for FDCP what is a valid and correct way to hold a film festival such as PPP? Also: what was wrong with last year’s festival, which by the way, they celebrated to have been the best thing ever?

Also: was it a discussion? Or was it an announcement? On the PPP Facebook Page, photos from the April 5 producers’ meeting was captioned: “Announcement of mechanics to <sic> our Filipino film producers for #PPP.”

Film critic Richard Bolisay joined the discussion on Abrahan’s wall, rightfully calling out Diño for her lackluster response:

The fact that those present did not object to this does not mean it is fair to all concerned. And the fact that you said that they are all producers indicates there is no diversity in terms of interest. Gian’s question is clear, which you evaded to answer: what is the primary reason for excluding festival entries from participating in the main fest? Does this new rule aim to benefit the industry (not just the people in it) in general? Also, a special feature section you mentioned seems to be mere tokenism, a gesture of charity to placate those affected, which frankly we don’t need right now. I am being straightforward because your response wasn’t.

Diño responded:

Let us not make assumptions that I am evading questions. That’s actually rude. There is a better venue for further discourse and it is not here. Our office is open to address concerns. Please email us or write us a letter instead of taking it to social media.

In fact, her evasion of the question is pretty clear: Diño did not answer Abrahan’s question about why the rules were changed for PPP this year. That is the most basic concern here, and it should be the easiest question to answer. Why does a festival change its rules after one year? What was wrong with the original rules? What is the rationale for this decision?

And no, this was not an assumption. This was stating an obvious fact, given the articulations of a public official. In fact if we are being strict: Diño made the assumption that since she announced the new rule to 40 producers and no one raised a fuss, that therefore there was no problem with this new rule. Diño’s assumption has led to this problem: one that she needs to address properly and correctly, as is the role of government officials like her. Anything less than a proper response, is evading the question of why the rules changed.

On Twitter, Bolisay got his share of pro-Diño responses, and interestingly enough, the narrative is such that his criticism of Diño is being labeled as “harassment,” insisting that the proper venue is at Diño’s office and not on social media.

And yet the first person who responded on social media was Diño herself. The person who uses social media to sell her projects is Diño herself. The person who is on hand to respond to every praise and celebratory pat on the back on social media is Diño herself. In effect she is saying that all comments are welcome, as long as it is not critical. She is saying that the proper venue for our criticism of FDCP, its projects, and its leaderships, is in an email, sent to her office, and not social media.

One wonders when it was that Diño decided she could dictate what we could, and could not do, on social media. One wonders why it is that instead of responding to criticism, she will evade it completely by putting into question the critic. One wonders in what world a cultural leader would be so ill-equipped to handle criticism — when it is criticism that arguably makes cultural work evolve, and change, and become? When her task in itself, is in fact inevitably and undoubtedly anchored on a critical stance about film, its making, its modes of production, and its crises?

Or maybe Diño does not know this?

I guess that’s a kind of transparency, too. ***