After facing a panel of journalists in the first round of Debate 2019: GMA Network’s Senatorial Face-Off last February 9, the 21 aspiring senators were then paired off for short debates on 10 pressing national issues.
Each candidate was given 45 seconds to explain why they were in favor or against the assigned topic, and were allotted 30 more seconds to answer a follow-up question from their opponent.
On promises and policies
“Doc” Willie Ong faced off against Atty. Erin Tañada with Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law as the topic up for debate. Tañada disapproved of TRAIN, citing it as anti-poor with its contribution to high inflation rates recorded in the previous year and the additional burden of excise taxes.
Ong, meanwhile, believed that positive things came out of the early stages of the TRAIN law—lowered income taxes of employees and the sin taxes. Ong added that taxes collected through TRAIN will fuel government programs such as Build, Build, Build, “Mahirap kasi kung urong-sulong tayo”, he said.
(It’s difficult if we’re indecisive.)
However, Tañada countered Ong, stating, “Nagawa nating magpagawa ng infrastructure projects noong nakaraang administrasyon na walang ipinapataw na buwis.”
(We managed to enact infrastructure projects during the time of the previous administration without imposing additional taxes.)
On the other hand, former Senate President Koko Pimentel and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority Deputy Director-General Diosdado “Dado” Padilla debated on joint oil and gas exploration in the disputed West Philippine Sea between China and the Philippines. Speaking against was Makabayan representative Neri Colmenares.
Pimentel cautioned against “alarmism”, arguing that Filipinos must not be afraid of China, “These are our neighbors, marami tayong shared values sa kanila,” he emphasized. He continued, “Let us focus on the constitutionality and the legality of the agreement.”
Padilla spoke in agreement with Pimentel, “‘Yung pakikipagkontrata ng Tsina sa Pilipinas sa pagkakaroon ng joint exploration ay tunay na pagkilala na kinikilala nila na tayo ay may karapatan sa West Philippine Sea,” Padilla exclaimed.
(China forming an alliance with the Philippines to conduct a join exploration is a testament to them recognizing that we have rights over the West Philippine Sea.)
He added that the joint exploration can help improve the country’s economy.
Colmenares criticized Pimentel and Padilla, calling for the government to exercise its sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea. “Tayo ang nanalo sa tribunal, bakit asta tayong talo?” he declared.
(We won the tribunal, [so] why do we act like we lost?)
Describing China as “crafty”, Colmenares called for the enforcement of an independent foreign policy. “Hindi tayo maka-Amerikano, hindi tayo maka-Tsino; tayo ay maka-Pilipino,” he proclaimed.
(We are not pro-American, we are not pro-China; we are pro-Filipino)
On the question of the proposed shift to federalism, journalist Jiggy Manicad spoke in favor of the change in hopes that it may give other aspiring leaders a chance to serve in the government. “Hindi lang Manila-centric iyon pong istilo ng pamamahala,” Manicad pointed out.
(Governance won’t be Manila-centric anymore.)
He also believes that federalism may be a long-term measure to prevent the emergence of political dynasties.
Meanwhile, Magdalo representative Gary Alejano opposed Manicad’s statements, saying that the country is not yet ready for this change. “In fact, we have [the] Local Government Code of 1991 [na] hindi pa natin fully implemented. [We] have not reviewed it for the last 28 years,” recalled Alejano.
He also fears that the growing gap between the rich and poor in the country may be further aggravated by such a significant change in government. Alejano expressed his fear of long-lasting negative effects that may result in this “experiment”.
Sustaining the Filipino family model
Addressing the presence of political dynasties in the country became a recurring topic in the debate. Former Interior secretary Raffy Alunan deemed it necessary to eradicate political dynasties, saying that the poorest provinces are usually those under dynastic rule.
“When we go down to the specifics, sagabal po ito sa health, sa poverty reductions, sa criminality at sa good governance,” explained Alunan. He also mentioned that the 1987 Constitution already prevents it but requires only further implementation.
His opponent, former Manila Metropolitan Development Authority chairman Francis Tolentino, conceded that everyone should have equal opportunities to serve in the government. However, he made several contradictory statements during his speech.
While Tolentino believes that political dynasties should be banned, he also said that “hindi po lahat ng political dynasty masama.”
(Not all political dynasties are bad.)
Should he be elected, he wants to make a law that will impose stricter limits on political dynasties, such as the degree of familial relations among officials.
Re-electionist senator JV Ejercito and eight-time aspiring senator Melchor Chavez tackled the topic of lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). Ejercito is in favor of the proposal, citing the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act as a well-meaning law that has been constantly abused by criminals and parents.
“Sa akin, dapat harsher penalties [para] doon sa mga adults, sa mga magulang, [at] sa mga kriminal na gumagamit sa mga bata,” he concluded.
(For me, harsher penalties [should be imposed] to adults, to parents, and to criminals who abuse children.)
Chavez, on the other hand, expressed his stand by simply stating that lowering or increasing the MACR will not help anyone. He was unable to further elaborate on his argument.
Labor leader Atty. Ernesto Arellano and Agnes Escudero were split on the topic of implementing divorce in the Philippines. Arellano, who is in favor of divorce, posed a difficult question on the topic of sustaining problematic marriages: “Kung ang agahan, tanghalian at hapunan n[g] mag-asawa ay kalmutan, ano ang solusyon nito?”
(If a couple’s breakfast, lunch, and dinner is only filled with fights, what solution is there?)
He asserted that divorce can be a potential solution only if it can have proper and strict laws similar to that of legal separation.
However, Escudero challenged this, stating that the Philippines prides itself with its strong family values and this culture should be preserved. To combat the idea of divorce, she instead plans to propose a bill that will give incentives to couples who reach their 25th and 50th wedding anniversaries.
“Bigyan sila ng incentive kasi mahirap kaya magkaroon ng forever. Madali ang maghiwalay, pero mahirap ang forever,” she concluded.
(Give them an incentive because it is difficult to attain “forever”. It’s easy to leave one another, but attaining “forever” is a challenge.)
Long-standing governance issues
Atty. Larry Gadon and Leodigario “Ka-Leody” de Guzman debated over the reinstatement of death penalty. Gadon stated that death penalties can help lower crime rates, and if it were to be implemented, it should only be for the most heinous crimes to be committed. He then commented,“Ang boses ng tao ay boses ng Diyos.”
(The voice of the people is the voice of God.)
He cited that developed countries such as Singapore and Saudi Arabia have death penalties, which he claimed to have effectively lowered crime rates due to the fear it instills. Ka-Leody did not agree with this and believed the right way to lower crime rate and help criminals is to rehabilitate them. If there is no more hope for them, he suggested instead to jail them indefinitely.
Ilocos Norte Governor Imee Marcos and Atty. Chel Diokno talked about the possible removal of term limits and if federalism should be implemented in the country. Marcos explained that term limits should be removed because these do not help the country. She argued that what the country needs is political reform and elite persistence, citing that some political dynasties have been products of term limits. She said that these dynasties born out of term limits lead to inefficient governance, which can create bigger problems.
Diokno countered the point of Marcos, saying, “Hindi pa ba kayo nadala sa nangyari sa atin noong martial law?”
(Have you not learned after what happened to us back in the martial law era?)
With his statement, he cited Former President Ferdinand Marcos as an example of someone ruling with no term limits.
He pointed out that the former head of state used his power to abolish term limits to rule longer, which led to martial law being enforced and his family stealing money from the people. Diokno ended his speech approving of term limits, and suggesting that term limits be imposed also on relatives of incumbent officials.
The last topic of debate was between Zajid “Dong” Mangudadatu and Atty. Romy Macalintal concerning the extension of martial law in Mindanao. Mangudadatu, a resident of Mindanao, was in favor of the extension. He said the people of Mindanao have become more disciplined as a result of martial law, and that martial law has helped control the extremist acts of violence in the region.
Macalintal, against the extension, retorted, “Hindi na ba tayo natuto sa 1972 martial law?”
(Have we not learned from the 1972 martial law implementation?)
He stood by his belief that martial law is not needed in Mindanao, and what the island needs is more economic activities to help the people. “Hindi bala, hindi kanyon, kung hindi awa at tulong ang kailangan ng ating kapatid na Muslim,” asserted Macalintal.
(Our Muslim brothers need care and help, not bullets or canyons.)
