How the candidates fared at the Forum

I decided to attend at least one forum of presidential candidates, the one at the University of the Philippines last Monday.

Getting through the UP campus traffic regulations which nevertheless did not prevent chaos was the first challenge. I ended up cluelessly going through the candidates’ entrance which was clogged from the outside by supporters. It is true that watching a forum on television is best. But seeing it in real time at a real place with real tensions and emotions is worth the effort.

As such, the Inquirer First Edition Forum as it was called was quite orderly and controlled in the sense of time management, demanding brief answers as well as fast thinking from the candidates. The other plus was that instead of general questions eliciting motherhood answers, there were specific questions for each candidate. That did not rule out motherhood statements but it did limit them.

The other plus for presidential forums is the inclusion for public viewing of all candidates regardless of their survey positions. This gives them and the public a chance to hear each other. Interpersonal relationships are important to any electorate, more so, ours. But at the same time in a forum like the Inquirer First Edition’s they are in a more structured format which precludes individual demands from constituents and candidates’ promises, the not-so-positive element of political discourse.

Going by alphabetical order, here is my report:

Aquino was in a what you see is what you get mode. His answers in rapid Tagalog were serious, adequate and commonsensical.
In that forum he did not play to the audience, but stuck to what he thought was the answer to questions tailored for him—will his younger sister dominate (no), will he acknowledge the Chief Justice appointed by the present president (no because he believes it would be unconstitutional and a president must uphold the Constitution), on Asean (a paper tiger unless they come down hard on human rights violators in the organization like Myanmar), on the budget (felt that 40 percent IRA might be too large for some cities and too little for others, formula must be re-done with a carrot and stick approach, you get more if you bring up the standard of living, etc.).

Aquino showed a healthy prec-ccuption with how the budget is handled. On the question of church and state (a definite stand for separation).

JC Reyes is young and was tense. He has his religious biases which from the way he answered the questions will impact on governance (no to RH bill or population planning as they are virtually for abortion, no to sex education in schools, just increase health care). He sends his children to public school to be with “real people” and compensates by providing values education and compensatory teaching at home. His point is that he will concentrate on education which while it has the biggest allocation in the budget is, according to him, not true in real sums released. He will put the implementing rules against the proliferation of political dynasties in compliance with the constitutional mandate. Basically, he states that the country has a leadership problem which is a truism by now.

Richard Gordon was inspiring. He has a can-do attitude which is contagious when he articulates that we have to stop doubting ourselves and get to work. He goes straight to the point in answering a question without toning down the truth as he sees it. On Erap, he wondered what were the values expressed via the Supreme Court and this society in general to his saga from Malacañang to Tanay and back to running for president. On Mindanao he advocated economic empowerment via infrastructure, basic services, transport and communication as well as the moral and legal basis to get rid of the predatory dynasties and open opportunity to the ordinary people. As for the OFWs, they must have a job market here by equalizing opportunity, eliminating corruption and keeping them home for nation-building. He honestly said taxes are needed to get where we want to be.

Jamby Madrigal was the lone woman in the forum and she stood out for her frank answers to questions including the price of galunggong (she didn’t know, she’s a vegetarian), a divorce bill (annulments are only for those who can afford, a referendum should be held on it), pork barrel (a source of corruption), against cartels and oligarchs (she is for the common folk). Political advertisements (no actors, no children, no wanton spending, she has seen the folly of using a movie star in her first campaign), her husband (will be chastized by her if he misbehaves as the president’s husband).

Nick Perlas was the idealist citizen who follows his bent by challenging the Establishment. Yet he was no wild-eyed militant condemning the status quo. He gave well-reasoned answers to specific questions that were knowledgeable and inclusive of everyone in society (in a bow to the role of civil society, he will create a cabinet post for it, for the Health Department he will appoint Jaime Galvez Tan, for the DENR he will have Tony Oposa). Perlas bravely said (despite the civil society majority stance) that he is for a liberalized mining industry after fixing the loopholes in the mining law which he thinks can and should be fixed pointing out that without metals there are no computers, no medical equipment, etc. Public teachers must be given a salary of at least P40,000 monthly. Asked who he thought was the best Philippine president, he unhesitatingly said Ramos for his ability to consult and to listen. Nick Perlas sounded like he would do the same.

Gilbert Teodoro was clear and straighforward, managing to answer complex to uncomfortable questions with a seriousness lightened with a sense of humor when necessary. On the RH bill he pleaded for consensus before bringing it up again, not a consensus of uniformity or rigidity but one of consultation, freedom of choice and respect for individual conscience. In the same way, ethnic minorities in mining areas must consent to mining and if not, no mining must be allowed. Questioned about the status of three important personages in his life, he singled out his mother in law as the most important. But for no one will he violate the law or interfere with its implementation. He offered practical advice on crime and corruption—prevention through various means like reduction of temptation, implementation of the law without fear or favor. He advocated for modernization through materiel and upgraded standards for the armed forces. About the rich getting richer, he said that while true here, it was a worldwide phenomenon which demanded a more open economy, adequate standards of living and paradigms to uplift and move as many out of poverty as possible.

Eddie Villanueva was both Brother Eddie and Economist Eddie. As Brother Eddie, his answer on a dispute on pregnancy between husband and wife was not clear, it seemed to imply there are no such conflicts. As Economist Eddie he felt that the stimulus package of the current Administration must be reviewed, that foreign debt must be restructured and not paid as the current debt service demands, the elderly should be given pensions by virtue of age alone. Small and Medium Enterprises must be developed and Manila centrism removed. On whether Media should be armed, he said private armies must be disarmed and Media should be armed. At least that’s what the indirect way of answering seemed to lead to. As Brother Eddie again, he said his moral ascendancy as an explicit religious leader for president will be credible to both the MILF and the MNLF. He also believes that solid and complete autonomy via the Constitution and a budget be given to Mindanao.

Manuel Villar was last only by alphabetical order, of course. He decried the culture of impunity in Mindanao, the extravagance of the La Cirque incident, etc. when asked to comment. In answer to the question, he said that he will separate business from politics in his conduct as a public official. He stated that he has now categorically left business behind and is now solely into politics. He intends to rework representative districts which are not inconsistent as to standards for being so, by balancing them according to population size. But harking back to his real estate experience he acknowledged that the recent typhoons showed many mistakes in urban planning and local government decisions regarding development, all of which have to addressed and rectified. Relocation should be mandatory in transferring people from hazardous areas. He took Madrigal’s and Gordon’s brickbats in deadma fashion, played his rich and poor card, and looked none the worst for the wear and tear of the campaign. –MA. ISABEL ONGPIN, Manila TImes

miongpin@yahoo.com