Perspectives of Lawyers/Legal Experts and Heavy Viewers on Raffy Tulfo in Action

This study aimed to determine and assess the perceptions of legal professionals and heavy viewers regarding the program Raffy Tulfo in Action. The study adopted a qualitative research design, specifically a case study that required an in-depth interview for each participant. The population was selected through purposive sampling and all the processes in data gathering were conducted online. In terms of conflict resolution, this section discusses how the procedure or process of the host in resolving the cases. The respondents favored the show's impartiality in cross-examination and efficiency in resolving disputes. Most of the program's episodes are smoothly solved because of the process of negotiating or settlement for both parties and this would become the people’s attraction to solve their issues faster instead of bringing them to court. Controversial issues discuss the respondents’ opinions about the controversial or sensitive issues being presented to the public. The respondent's views are both positive and negative as they both acknowledge that the presented cases are entertaining and inappropriate for televising and broadcast. In terms of public service, is the assistance given by the program from both parties and its viewers. The respondents view the financial assistance for aggrieved parties and the integration of legal insights and concepts within the show as helpful for the parties involved and the viewers. It shows that the Raffy Tulfo in Action has improved the public knowledge of the legal system or they are educating the public at the same time helpful for financial, this may be because this reality program is different from scripted programs, while is still helpful, knowledgeable and have an entertainment value. In terms of the perceptions of the respondents on Raffy Tulfo in Action, this explains the general perceptions of how they viewed the program, including their stands on the show. In contrast, few dissenting opinions have viewed the inappropriateness and partiality of the host in dealing with controversial issues in conflict resolution. The show also humiliates defending parties, subjecting them to criticism, and trial by publicity