“The public was given a preview of the direction their decisions may take once they are in power.”
In last weekend’s presidential and vice-presidential debates organized by CNN Philippines, a feisty professor proved disruptive while several presidential candidates stood out over their strong grasp of current events and issues.
The events were held at the University of Santo Tomas, as they were in 2016. To no one’s surprise, the tandem of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte declined to participate. House Deputy Speaker Lito Atienza, running for VP, was a no-show as well.
The following things were apparent during the debate: first, that the candidates who are serving in government had access to data and information not available to the others, enabling them to have a better grasp of issues and give good answers (except in the case of Manny Pacquiao).
Second, some of the candidates are intelligent and have good comprehension and critical thinking skills. Third, the political and issue-related leanings of the candidates emerged quite clearly, a preview of the direction their decisions may take once in power.
On Saturday, sociology professor Walden Bello proved to be the gadfly of the vice-presidential debate. He called out Sara Duterte and Marcos Jr. for not showing up to the mat. He launched into Sen. Tito Sotto for “rewriting history” by trying to dissociate himself from his early support for President Rodrigo Duterte and failing to protect Sen. Leila De Lima. Neither did he spare Sen. Kiko Pangilinan for his role in passing the CREATE law that lowers corporate income tax and that could reduce government revenue.
Sotto’s edge is his public service that has given him a wide and deep knowledge of issues of national concern. However, Bello managed to put Sotto on the defensive on several points.
While Pangilinan nearly lost his cool over Bello’s fiery thrusts, he managed to keep it together and present an image of a knowledgeable person who can get the job done.
Dr. Willie Ong approached most questions from his point-of-view as a physician, and gave simple, easy-to-understand answers that, however, were lacking in breadth and depth.
On Sunday, Dr. Jose Montemayor showed himself to be on the side of the capitalists, as Ka Leody de Guzman pointed out. While the former came off as elitist, the latter’s sincerity was palpable, and his knowledge of labor issues is formidable.
Manny Pacquiao’s answers were rather more of motherhood statements, religious references, and rants about corruption; unfortunately, he came off as a lightweight in this particular ring.
Manila Mayor Isko Moreno Domagoso approached most questions from the mindset of a manager and administrator, and could match most points raised with a plan of action. He admitted keeping his excess campaign funds from when he ran for mayor, because, he said, the law does not provide against it, and he paid the proper taxes. This honesty was appreciated by many netizens, who at the same time decried his pocketing the funds instead of using them for a more altruistic purpose.
Sen. Ping Lacson remained calm and poised throughout, but to some it seemed his energy was flagging. He was frustrated at not having enough time to answer questions properly and give them the attention he could have provided (CNN only allowed each candidate 1.5 minutes). His long years of public service also gave him the background to speak about issues credibly and with confidence.
The presidential debate became a setting for Vice-President Leni Robredo to shine because she had a good grasp of the issues and overall gave well-thought answers that kept to the topic.
Netizens compared her to Gloc 9 the rapper, because she had to speak very fast, in the time she was given, to list all that her office has done to help Filipinos. However, even her own supporters were disappointed over her anti-divorce stand.
Other viewers of the debates have their own opinions on how it went for each candidate. But most can agree that the candidates were not given enough time to give more definitive, nuanced answers.
All of the candidates present, except Montemayor, said the debates are a good thing. Mayor Isko likened them to job interviews, with the people being the “HR department.”
Hopefully, future debates will take the glitches of the previous ones into account and allow more opportunities for candidates to pitch their platforms to voters, who need to be able to make informed decisions come May 9 when they hire a new president and vice-president.
*** FB and Twitter: @DrJennyO
