Experts speak up on presidential debate

Rappler.com

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Experts speak up on presidential debate
Highlights of the debate commentary from experts, activists, and partners of MovePH

MANILA, Philippines – Rappler’s civic engagement arm, MovePH, invited a panel of experts and advocates from different fields to give their observations on the February 21 presidential debate via Scribblelive and Twitter using the hashtag #PHVote.

Among them were:

  • Sonny Africa, IBON Foundation executive director, 
  • Dr Nicole Curato, UP sociologist
  • Happy Feraren, Bantay.PH co-founder
  • David Garcia, urban planner and geographer
  • Marie Nuñez, Oxfam media communications manager
  • Atty Antonio Oposa, environmental lawyer
  • Ana Santos, writer on sex and gender issues
  • Prof Ed Tadem, Freedom from Debt Coalition president
  • Evan Tan, Philippine LGBT Chamber of Commerce executive committee member

The debate covered the following topics:

  • Agriculture and fisheries 
  • Poverty reduction, asset creation, and redistribution
  • Mindanao issues
  • Peace and order

 

Expectations were high at the start of the debate.


 


 

Here’s what they had to say after the opening statements:

Professor Michael Labayandoy of Lyceum of the Philippines-Laguna noted:

“Santiago, Binay, and Poe bank on poverty on why they are relevant as Presidents. Duterte focuses on criminality. Roxas emphasizes a caring government. They need to frame these main arguments throughout the debate. We can judge them at the end of the debate as to how they exactly plan to resolve/execute these concerns. #PHVote”


 



 

 


Agriculture and fisheries

Environmental lawyer Antonio Oposa had this to say :

“The cause of poverty among fisherfolk is that the fish supply has been so depleted by illegal fishing. The solution is to implement the law against illegal fishing, especially the law against illegal commercial fishing that deplete the fish resources to benefit only a handful, and establish marine protected areas to restock the fish and marine resources. To advocate fish finders where there is no more fish left is like fighting a fire by pouring gasoline.”

Professor Ed Tadem, President of the Freedom from Debt Coalition said:

“What will he do about the fact that it is large scale commercial fishing that dominates the fishing industry; to the detriment of the muncipal and other small scale fishing,”


Ibon Foundation’s Sonny Africa observed:

Neither Binay or Poe seem to appreciate how land reform remains so uncompleted — some 7 out of 10 farmers still don’t own the land they till and this greatly limits the impact of the specific agri measures they mentioned. Still, nice to see how much Poe has studied about the state of Philippine agriculture”

David Garcia, urban planner, pointed out:

There are existing and large agroindustrial zones in PH, but they are rapidly converted into suburbs. #PHVote #PiliPinasDebates2016″

Oxfam’s Marie Nunez observed:

Strategic interventions to ensure food security, not just feeding programs – I find Sen Poe’s answer lacking in vision in terms of the ag, food and climate issues.”

Tadem also raised another point:

Providing subsidies to farmers violates WTO rules. Will the candidates support our withdrawal from WTO?”

Gender issues advocate Ana Santos asked:

Are the candidates aware WHO the Filipino farmer is? He is on average 57-year-old and has reached grade school education. #PHVote”

Poverty reduction, asset creation and distribution

Tadem raised a relevant question:

“What is the candidates’ stand on the automatic debt appropriation law of Marcos? Debt repayment always takes the first cut of the budget (from 15-130 %). In 2015, that amounted to almost P800 billion.We are the only country in the world with such a law!”

He also noted:

I wish the candidates would deal with the more important issues of inequality, climate justice, the automatic debt appropriation law, and tax and fiscal justice.”

Nuñez noted:

There are other inequalities – what’s the take on gender inequality and discrimination? How will candidates promote more tolerance and respect for gender and cultural diversity? The Mamasapano incident, and the recent uproar on Manny Pacquiao’s take on LGBTs are reflections of deeply entrenched biases in the Filipino psyche”

 

 

 

 Gender issues advocate Ana Santos remarked on ScribbleLive:

Yes, dalawa ang Makati. Ayala side and Binay side. The demarcation line is the train tracks. #PHVote #PiliPinasDebate2016″

 

 

Professor Michael Labayandoy of Lyceum of the Philippines-Laguna, pointed out on ScribbleLive:

Poe wants feeding program. The major problem is budget. DepEd only earned 16% budget increase compared to DPWH (32% increase). #PHVote”

 

Nuñez observed:

While tax justice important, Roxas, correct on social protection and more public investments in essential services such as health and eduction”

Tadem also raised another point:

None of the candidates have raised the issue of inequality. Only 0.1% of Filipino families comprise the upper class while 99.9% are middle or lower class.”

Professor Michael Labayandoy of Lyceum of the Philippines-Laguna had a practical observation:

Santiago’s question: “Where will we get the budget?” Every candidate should problematize this because they promise lots of services #PHVote” 

Garcia had this to say:

There are urban dynasties who hold urban votes, which drive election results; since most of Filipinos are in cities. #PHVote #PiliPinasDebates2016″

He later remarked:

Most of PH urban workers don’t own urban land and housing. Lack of tenure is another cause of urban poverty. #PHVote #PiliPinasDebates2016″

He also made an observation regarding local governments:

Local government autonomy is already high, because of Republic Act 7160. What we have are unfunded mandates. #PHVote #PiliPinasDebates2016″ 

Miriam’s health 

Labayandoy observed:

“Duterte did not point out the constitutionality of Santiago’s medical condition disclosure. I think they are not really debating. They should be engaging each other. #PHVote”

Tadem echoed this view:

“Candidates with health issues should release their medical records for transparency and honesty’s sake”.

Mindanao issues

 

Constitutional issues

Labayandoy remarked:

Duterte wants federalism to resolve Mindanao issues: “puro baluktot na daan.” Federalism is a serious constitutional concern. #PHVote”

Tadem said:

Binay obviously does not respect the constitution re anti-dynasty bill.”

Africa stressed:

VP Binay on political dynasties defends the indefensible. Sen. Santiago uncharacteristically tongue-tied but political dynasties self-evidently problematic anyway.”

Meanwhile, Nuñez noted:

Poe, while harping on inclusion, digressed on the issue; Duterte was more categorical re position on BBL #PHVote”

Tadem raised a point regarding national security and sovereignty:

Good point made by Santiago re EDCA. It should really be abrogated. We should not be beholden to either China or the US.”

Peace and order 

Labayandoy observed:

Duterte promises to resolve cartel, corruption, crimes in 3-6 months. The rule of law was not questioned by Binay. Not engaging #PHVote”

Gender issues advocate Ana Santos expressed a concern:

Drugs rampant in exclusive subdivisions and clubs? Drugs also rampant in shantytowns and drug dens called “shooting galleries” in Cebu City.  #PHVote #PiliPinasDebate2016″

 

Panelists also expressed disappointment on certain aspects of the debate.

Nuñez noted:

“Where are the questions coming from? The moderators should veer away from personality issues to more substantive issues”

She later remarked:

Debate so far has not given us enough insight on how candidates think – i.e., their analysis of root causes, logic of interventions #PHVote”

“The debate format is problematic. It did not encourage continuity, deepening of positions. Much needs to be clarified,” said Labayandoy.

He also noted, “This debate is a measure of track record or accomplishments, integrity and concrete plans. Leadership is not instinct.No more slogans and metaphors, please. They need to be more concrete and stick to their opening statement premises. #PHVote”

“I wish the candidates would deal with the more important issues of inequality, climate justice, the automatic debt appropriation law, and tax and fiscal justice,” observed Tadem.

Garcia noted:

Candidates should tell more about their plan on urban poverty. PH pop is more than 50% urban already. #PHVote #PiliPinasDebates2016″

He added:

Next time, they should show how to systematically develop urban and rural areas together. #PHVote #PiliPinasDebates2016″







Africa expressed his disappointment:

Didn’t see much debate which pretty much reflects the narrow range of choices we have in May 2016. The candidates can’t really brawl on key issues and platforms because, unfortunately, they don’t really disagree on much (apart from finding each other disagreeable). Hence our personality-oriented traditional politics. 

“The “debate” didn’t raise anything new about where the candidates stand. Maybe we could have had at least some more insight if they were more spontaneous and didn’t rely on prepared responses? Not so helpful, or entertaining…”


Most of the experts believed the event was hardly a tussle of visions and platforms. (READ: No sparks: ‘Not a debate, but speed dating’)

Five presidential candidates – Vice President Jejomar Binay, Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, Senator Grace Poe, former interior secretary Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, and Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago – attended the first debate.

The event was organized by GMA-7 and the Philippine Daily Inquirer. 

Check out the full debate commentary from partners of MovePH. Share your thoughts on X! – Lou Gepuela/Rappler.com

 

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!