Face to Face: Barangay Hall on TV

CEBU, Philippines - Foul language on ABC 5’s talakserye “Face to Face,” despite being edited, may be disturbing, plus catfights on TV are never healthy for the young audience. But its concept, patterned after the Jerry Springer show in the US, is one that allows for variety among the programs offered on free TV networks.

Also, you get to witness what you don’t like to see but, in the process, learn from the mediators that complicated situations can be avoided if we learn to avoid picking on something so petty. Another is that regardless of the degree of the rift, there is an appropriate solution to every conflict provided we listen to what the law has to say through mediation and conciliation.

“Face to Face” moderated by TV/movie/radio personality Amy Perez takes on the format that provides a respite from the overload of gyrating women, cavalcade of commercials, and the “nakakaumay” dance production numbers on the talent search shows occupying the late morning to noontime slots.

TVdom’s first “Barangay Hall on TV” presents cases referred at various barangay halls. A three-man panel forms part of the Trio Tagapayo—a priest for spiritual direction (Fr. Gerry Tapiador of the Good Shepherd Convent), a psychologist (Dr. Camille Garcia/Dr. Rose Llanes) to point out how human behavior is integral in either the settlement or non-settlement of a particular case tackled in the show, and a lawyer from the Public Attorney’s Office (Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta or her substitute) to shed light on the legalities of human action/interaction.

Bouncers are on hand to handle emotional outbursts, while the “sawsawero/sawsawera” or the studio audience has the license to heckle the parties in row. From the word “sawsaw” (to meddle), sawsaweros and sawsaweras can also ask for clarifications from aggrieved parties (which, I think, are based on questions prepared by the writer/s of the show). They also get the chance to take sides to the issue—either “pula” or “puti” representing the two sides to a coin.

“Face to Face” is a welcome development for viewers like me who would want to be both informed and entertained at the same time.

Mediocrity brings in a deluge of issues. TV, which is also a culprit for propagating mediocrity (and a culture of mendicancy), should also bring back the confidence of its viewers in society, government and other institutions by emphasizing “sensibility TV”, which would mean imparting to viewers things they didn’t know or didn’t care to know, encouraging them to participate or interact.

One episode, for example featured a midwife who was not paid of her services. It was learned that she couldn’t just demand the P2,500 payment because she was unlicensed. Her friend, who has prior knowledge that she has no license and still availed of her services, could likewise be blamed for being in a situation hot to handle. It was the midwife who filed a complaint against her neighbor, when after two years, she wasn’t being paid for “lying-in services” and yet she could see that the woman spent for illegal gambling. When asked, the woman reasoned out that she refused to pay as no birth certificate was issued. It reached the point that the “midwife” got fed up and hit her face instead with a mug to get even. The neighbor sustained a deep wound that needed six stitches that the more she refused to settle the “debt”. The rift ran deeper, extending to their families and friends, till the case was taken up at the barangay.

Situation as such may just be an ordinary occurrence in our neighborhood, but it would not have gone that complicated if only people involved knew what’s appropriate, what’s just and what’s right.

Conflicting parties would have to deal with the case with a confrontation, wherein during the “facebuking” segment, witnesses would come out and further shed light on the matter.

Another case tackled may seem cheesy but this is reality. Friends fight, at times, for the love of one woman. Man A used to be Woman’s partner. She works as guest relations officer. Man A considers Man B a friend. Man A trusts Man B enough to leave the Woman to his care, while he is away for work. The problem is Man B works as bouncer at the same bar where Woman works.

“Alam ko po na mali po ang manulot, kaya lang nahulog po ang loob ko sa kanya (Woman) unti-unti,” Man B admitted on “Face to Face.”

Filled with anger, Man A rose from his white seat and pounced at Man B, while Amy Perez rushed to her “neutral corner” giving way for the show’s sergeant-at-arms to prevent a brawl.

“Walang (toot-toot) ka! Pinagkatiwalaan pa naman kita kasi tingin ko sa ‘yo kaibigan,” Man A barked, prompting sawsaweros and sawsaweras to chant “puti, puti, puti.”

Woman came in, gave Man B a peck, sat beside him and snapped at Man A. “Hindi na kita mahal, pabayaan mo na kami.”

In the end, things were settled after Man A received legal advice that he could be imprisoned from 6-12 years for stalking. And that because the girl has already chosen whom to live with, he could not force her as this is a violation of women’s rights.

Later on, a dose of spiritual guidance allowed for Man B to shake hands with Man A who still refused to look into his eyes. Woman also shook the hand of her former lover. “Okay na ako. Basta ang hiling ko lang maging magkaibigan pa rin tayo,” Man A said to the Woman, to the delight of the crowd who continued to take his side.

“Marami ka pang babae na ma-meet. Hayaan mo na ang ex mo. Kuntento na siya sa bago niyang pag-ibig. Ikaw bata ka pa, kaya madalas ang away nyo. Ang ex mo naghahanap ng mas mature na lalaki,” the priest advised Man A, who is 21 years old like the Woman. Man B is already in his mid-40s.

If shows like this prosper, Perez and crew can help people know and understand what they ought to do and not. And let them know that there is no such thing as a hopeless case. In the same way, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. It is natural law for every action to get an equivalent reaction. For wrong actions and decisions, we directly affect other people’s lives.

“Ang problema pwedeng tawanan, pero hinding-hindi natin pwedeng talikuran. Pag-usapan natin face to face,” as the show’s tagline goes.

It’s just sad though that a month after its pilot episode, netizens called for a review by the MTRCB on the value of the program; that the entire show is scripted and the guests are paid to quarrel on TV.

A recent post read: “Sino ba namang matino ang magi-guest sa TV para ipakita ang tunay niyang ugali?”

Fine, we’ll take this case to the barangay for mediation!