Photo edited by: Micaiah Frances Javier
Lights, Camera, Action—A line that we usually hear in show business and filmmaking. In this industry, actors desperately compete to get their much-desired “screen time,” show their potential, and eventually get to the top. However, in the Philippines, this is not just a line used in a set of a film but also in politics. Try doing a Google search on senatorial candidate Camille Villar’s name. How many articles about her have been written by Inquirer.net and the Manila Bulletin? In an incrementally eroding democracy like the Philippines, the media becomes the mise-en-scène where traditional politicians and political dynasties take control of where the camera focuses its lenses.
With the media’s crucial role in democracy as a mediator between candidates and voters, it must maintain its impartial and neutral nature. Only facts should be presented and all candidates must have their equal share of “screen time.” However, that is not the case with the Philippines now as the 2025 senatorial elections approaches. Thus, if media outlets during this time are not impartial, are the ideas being fed to voters still considered their own?
What is ‘Fragility’ in this context?
Media’s fragility can be framed into two perspectives in this context. First, fragility can exist in the media during elections due to political pressures, disinformation, and censorship. In this case, external factors directly attack content in the media, and it has almost no control over it. The other perspective entails that the media can become fragile in the sense that it may compromise its integrity and impartiality through the information it selectively disseminates. The media then becomes complicit in the selective dissemination of information along with other external factors. According to a survey conducted by Publicus Asia in 2024, 66% of the respondents chose television as one of their main sources of information, 67% chose the Internet such as news websites, and 62% chose social media, specifically Facebook. Thus, if the media becomes fragile in this sense during a time when the Filipinos need it more, then the credibility of the information they publish becomes questionable.
The Case of the Villars’ Political Dynasty
Today, three members of the Villar family hold positions in the government. Cynthia Villar and her son, Mark Villar, are currently in the Senate. Camille Villar, the youngest in the family, has been the House Representative for Las Pinas since 2019. In this year’s elections, Camille will run for senator, replacing her mother in the Senate as her term ends this year.
Currently, Camille Villar tops the charts as the #1 advertisement spender in the Senate race. From November 2024 to January 2025, she spent P1.25 million on Facebook ads targeted to voters in Western Visayas alone. Along with her ironic tagline, “Bagong Boses, Bagong Bukas (New Voice, New Tomorrow),” the Villars have shelled out a lot just to be in the spotlight. The light has gotten even brighter with the number of articles that Inquirer.net and Manila Bulletin, both respectable news outlets, have been publishing about them. Estimating the number of articles they published since February 2025, there have been more than 20 articles written about Camille and Mark Villar. To name a few of the headlines, “Camille Villar Vows to Champion Women’s Rights in the Senate,” “Camille Villar to Help Filipinos Attain Dream Homes and Sustainable Livelihood,” and many more. What’s even more alarming here is that the writers of these “news articles” use extremely optimistic words to describe what these siblings vow to do. Most of these are still promises that only time will tell if they will be fulfilled or broken.
Photo taken from Inquirer.net
The articles published by Inquirer.net and Manila Bulletin about the Villars usually follow a similar pattern: there is a ‘problem’ to be addressed or a marginalized sector that needs more ‘attention,’ and the Villars want to ‘address’ it. For instance, the article, “Camille Villar Vows to Champion Women’s Rights in the Senate” talks about how the social services of Filipino women need to be improved. Here comes Camille Villar who wants to ‘champion’ this advocacy in the Senate. The author then enumerates all the House Bills that Villar introduced. The article ends with a statement from Villar that this will be one of her priority programs if she gets elected and that she will be the voice of Filipino women. The same structure can be found in her other articles about boosting modernization in agriculture, giving more attention to senior citizens, and many more. In these articles, they try to take control of the camera and make sure that the lens only focuses on them. Not only that, they make the mise-en-scène seem perfect, and ensure that the lighting looks even better when shined upon them. Both the quantity and quality of the articles are manipulated in some way to be in favor of the candidate. In this way, the news outlets become a part of their campaign as they share their platforms and pose them as “news” to the public.
It might seem ‘too obvious’ to some, but to the ordinary Filipino who tunes into these news outlets to seek information, especially those who belong to the groups the Villars aim to champion, this will paint the dynasty a very positive image—one that is attained in an unethical manner. Repetition of their names on the “news,” together with over-optimistic rhetoric would translate into votes. In the latest OCTA senatorial survey published last March 16, Camille Villar is among the top 12 senatorial candidates today.
Implications for Philippine Democracy
In her article, ‘On Democratic Backsliding,’ Nancy Bermeo argues that despite the decline of traditional varieties of democratic backsliding, it has evolved over the years. It has changed its face to become more sophisticated, making it harder to identify and counteract. These new acts of democratic backsliding are more subtle and often hide under the guise of democratic legitimacy. Along with the new varieties of democratic backsliding that Nancy Bermeo has identified, I believe that another one emerges today—strategic manipulation of the media. As we can see from the Villars’ case, this unethical aim of the spotlight on a single entity is another element that contributes to the incremental erosion of democracy in the Philippines. Media fragility undermines the transparency that we expect from a functioning democracy as there is a lack of a level-playing field in the media in terms of exposure of the candidates to build an image. Thus, the more fragile the media outlets are, the more fragile democracy is during elections. As it is a well-known fact that the Villars are among the richest individuals in the country, we can also say that the more wealth a candidate has, the more refined their image will be to the public.
This is a challenge for the media to remain impartial and neutral, especially during a time in which all Filipinos need them the most. Political advertisements published in supposedly ‘credible’ newspaper websites should be distinct from news articles to not blur the lines between actual news and advertising. Because at the end of the day, no matter how focused the camera lens is on a subject, its filter can eventually come off and reveal the truth underneath.
Reading your blog made me remember what our guest speakers in class suggested to make paid political advertisements disguised as a news article distinct from regular news articles—make it implicitly stated that the article is paid. Hence, I agree with the points that you raised here, Mika. I understand that media organizations need profits to remain in business; however, in a time of disinformation, it is important to make it clear to the audience which information is paid to be brought to their screens and make them vote for certain candidates, and which ones were written for the sole purpose of informing them.
I also think that the Commission on Elections should step up in addressing not only the excessive expenses of politicians during the campaign period for their campaign advertisements but also their conduct of premature campaigning. If we want to have a true ‘free and fair’ elections, we must set the stage leveled for everyone, and premature campaigning prevents us from achieving that. It is because Philippine elections are a battle of name recall—whoever the voters remember on the day of the elections will significantly influence whose names they will shade on the ballots—providing those who conduct premature campaigning with greater leverage compared to those who cannot afford it.
Hi, Mica!
I really admire how you presented your piece with such clarity and specificity. You didn’t simply touch the surface—you got right to the core of the issue by highlighting the enormous power that comes with wealth and political influence.
What struck me the most was your courage in mentioning certain news outlets that consistently give the Villars a lot of publicity. This is about more than simply media coverage—it’s about how influence, power, and money may shape the narrative and influence public perception. In theory, the media should act as a watchdog for the people—but in practice, as you pointed out, it can become a tool for those who know how to use it.
While neutrality is ideal in journalism, your piece reminds us that no media entity is without biases. What is really concerning, however, is the outright nature of some of these biases today. When the media—our supposed trustworthy source of information—continues to depend too much on political machinery, it does more than undermine public trust; it fosters democratic erosion. I find your analysis of this concept as “strategic media manipulation” really effective. It’s not simply passive bias; it’s deliberate, calculated, and extremely damaging.
As more people rely on online news outlets for information, manipulating media narratives becomes increasingly harmful. Your article makes it apparent that this is not a danger in the future—it is happening right now. And if we are not vigilant and critical, the situation will only get worse.
Hi, Mica. This is a very thought-provoking article which critiques the changing role of media in democratic backsliding. I was intrigued by your use of Camille Villar as a case here but then again, there are lots of politicians in the Philippines who use their resources for their own benefit.
The points of the article remind me of accusations aimed towards the Manila Times during the Duterte Administration of being “bayaran,” or sellouts. Traditionally, we view the media as the “fourth branch of the government,” but with a political climate such as in the Philippines, I concur with the idea that this may no longer be the case. Although some outlets like Rappler and the independent media such as AlterMidya have taken strides to deliver news free from political interference, we cannot deny that the media is biased, either for good or for bad. The agenda-setting nature of the media makes it possible for them to restrict the kind of news that they release and to only let the people know what they (the media) want them to know. Moreover, ideologies or loyalties play a huge role in the kind of news that they deliver. In this increasingly post-truth world, I fear that the “truth” of the news is becoming what politicians like Camille Villar make of it.
Although we continue to withstand external interference on media content, I am afraid that with the increasingly volatile nature of Philippine politics, the media will become more like a weapon for politicians to create their realities. But then again, for as long as resistance is alive, this may still be far from reality.
This is such a well-written piece! I commend your choice of topic, especially considering how the media, often dubbed the “fourth branch of government,” can appear partial and politicized under capitalism. Similarly, your focus on the Villar family as a political dynasty effectively illustrates how the country’s political and economic elites often consolidate power into a single entity.
Your piece highlights social media’s role in promoting Camille Villar ahead of the 2025 midterm elections. Indeed, targeting social media, used by 90.8 million Filipinos, was a strategic investment. I also appreciate that you included details about her pre-campaign spending. Reports suggest this may have reached billions of pesos, far surpassing the ₱3 per voter spending cap imposed by the Commission on Elections (Comelec). Moreover, as early as mid-2024, posters featuring her name, photo, and the message “Ingat sa byahe” were spotted along major thoroughfares, an unmistakable signal of her intent to run for the Senate, as you noted in reference to her possibly “replacing her mother.”
This piece led me to reflect on two important aspects of Philippine democracy and elections.
First, media—whether traditional or digital—has always played, and will continue to play, a crucial role in the country’s personality-driven politics. While it holds the potential to foster transparency and accountability, media coverage tends to spotlight “headline-worthy” events, rather than substantive issues like policies, platforms, and programs, the very criteria by which candidates should be evaluated.
Second, the current electoral spending laws in the Philippines are deeply flawed and undemocratic, frequently bypassed under the pretense of being “donated by friends and family.” In theory, anyone can run for public office, but in practice, not everyone has an equal chance of winning. Success is often determined by popularity, endorsements, and financial resources, as exemplified in the case of Camille Villar.
Great work, Mika!
Your piece powerfully highlights the alarming reality of media fragility in the context of Philippine elections. The metaphor of show business—“Lights, Camera, Action”—was a clever yet sobering way to illustrate how some candidates, especially from powerful political dynasties, use wealth and influence to dominate media space. I completely agree with your point that when supposedly credible news outlets blur the line between journalism and campaign propaganda, they stop serving the public and instead become extensions of political machinery.
The case of the Villar family is a perfect example of how strategic media manipulation distorts public perception. I found it particularly striking how you noted the recurring structure of articles that cast Camille Villar as the answer to every social problem. That kind of narrative not only simplifies complex issues but also constructs a carefully curated image that voters may mistake for fact. I also appreciated your use of Nancy Bermeo’s idea of “stealth authoritarianism” to frame this phenomenon. It’s a reminder that democratic backsliding doesn’t always come in obvious forms—sometimes, it’s disguised as visibility, access, and success.
Ultimately, your call for media accountability is both timely and necessary. Just like how voters need access to accurate information to make sound decisions, media outlets need to resist becoming campaign tools and instead reclaim their role as impartial watchdogs. If we truly want a functioning democracy, we must push for transparency in both politics and the platforms that shape public discourse.