GE 2014 candidates face off in Harapan debate


The annual debate for the General Elections, Harapan 2014, in which candidates from Alyansang Tapat sa Lasalista, Santugon sa Tawag ng Panahon and the independent candidates take part, was held at the William Shaw Little theatre, 9 am to 12 noon today. Harapan was organized by the Commission on Elections, in partnership with Ang Pahayagang Plaridel.

The first round of debate was between Tapat and Santugon. Santugon being the affirmative side fielded their standard bearer Carlo Inocencio, together with the School of Economics (SOE) college president candidate Reese Mujer and CATCH 2T17’s Legislative Assembly (LA) Representative candidate Patrick Khan. Tapat, on the other hand fielded their standard bearer Patrick Lo, College of Liberal Arts (CLA) college president Roca Triguero and BLAZE 2016 Batch Vice President (VP) candidate Cheska Ventenilla. The topic of debate was that whether or not the USG should have autonomy from the Administration. Santugon centered their argument on the effectiveness of the USG being hampered by the administration,  leading to students’ right and welfare not being protected enough while, Tapat centered their argument that if the USG is going to be autonomous then bridges will be burned making it detrimental in terms of representing the students. Tapat was deemed the winner of this debate with Roca Triguero being adjudged to be the Best Debater.

The second round of debate’s topic was whether or not the West should fund pro-LGBT rights movements in Russia. This round involved the college president candidates for the Gokongwei College of Engineering. Charm Chioson represented Santugon, Icy Minano for Tapat and Jon Ridge Ong as the independent candidate. Chioson and Minano motioned for the West to fund LGBT rights movements in Russia with Ong on the other hand motioning the opposite. Ong was found to be the winner of the debate.

The third round of the debate involved the candidates for Batch President for BLAZE 2014. The topic of debate is whether or not a benevolent dictatorship is better than a democracy. Richard De Guzman represented himself as the independent candidate with Gio Umali and JR Co representing Santugon and Tapat respectively. Umali and De Guzman motioned for a benevolent dictator with Umali stating that democracy is prone to corruption and De Guzman citing economic progress. Co gave the reason that democracy is imperfect but is the noble path to choose plus that it tackles immediate need via a long term vision. Umali was deemed the winner for this round.

The fourth and last round of the debate had the VP-Internal Affairs candidates take part. Jenn Noblezada represented Santugon, Pram Menghrajani as the independent candidate and Vani Altomonte representing Tapat. The topic of debate was whether or not the state should grant executive pardon. Altomonte and Menghrajani motioned for the house that the state should not grant executive pardon with Noblezada motioning that the state should grant executive pardon. Altomonte argued that the president is not a legal expert and can be swayed by politics while Menghrajani gave the reason that evidence which was not presented beforehand is the only way a person can be exonerated from his or her crimes. Noblezada gave the reason that pardon exists for the sole reason that it is the final entity for checks and balance for the government and that the interest of the people must be put over anything else. Altomonte was the winner of this round.

After a series of debates, an open forum was held where the Executive Board candidates of Santugon and Tapat plus VP-Internal Affairs independent candidate, Menghrajani answered questions from the crowd.

The Miting De Avance will happen later at the amphitheatre at 2:40 pm. – Lorenzo del Carmen

The LaSallian

By The LaSallian

4 replies on “GE 2014 candidates face off in Harapan debate”

Thank you Lorenzo for covering the debate! I hope that in the future TLS will post more articles about the elections such as student feedback about our platforms and how we can improve campaigning inside the university. Because I think. being the student publication, you have integrity and machinery to help get a more objective feedback than candidates themselves.

Leave a Reply