Youth’s impact in elections, senatoriables’ plans discussed in Bantay Boto 2019

Seven senatorial candidates debated on pressing national issues last February 23 at the UP Diliman International Center of Public Administration. Senatoriables Gary Alejano, Raffy Alunan, Atty. Neri Colmenares, Chel Diokno, Elmer Francisco, Atty. Florin Hilbay, and Dr. Willie Ong presented their own stances and arguments on political dynasties, press freedom, federalism, and other pressing topics.

Organized by Bantay Boto 2019, an alliance of youth organizations and councils from Philippine Normal University, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, and Polytechnic University of the Philippines, the Bantay Boto 2019: Sulong senatorial forum featured not only senatorial bets, but also youth leaders and prominent figures in the field of political science to develop “genuine voices” among the youth and promote informed voter decisions.

 

 

“Your vote is priceless”

Jules Guiang was introduced as the first speaker for the event, who is a TV host in People’s Television, a member of the United Nations Youth Advisory Board, and the founder and national convenor of Youth Force PH. In his segment, he addressed the vital role of the youth in elections and what societal issues should be discussed.

He asked the youth-dominated audience a range of questions, “Malakas ba kayo?, Matalas ba kayo? Matapang ba kayo? Matalino ba kayo? Malaya ba kayo?” (Are you strong? Are you keen? Are you brave? Are you smart? Are you free?) The audience agreed to all, except to the question pertaining to freedom. Guiang then proceeded to discuss each of these attributes.

Malakas, according to him, pertains to the power the youth has in terms of voting, which can be seen in their numbers. In 2019, there are a total of 61 million voters—26.2 million of which are from the youth. Matalas and matapang, meanwhile, reminds the youth to be keen and to protect their vote. The importance of setting a criteria for one’s standards is stressed under the attribute matalino. Lastly, using one’s voice in social media can have its opposing sides, but the freedom to educate is still present; this is what Guiang pertained to for malaya.

 

Present state

The second speaker was Richard Heydarian, a former DLSU professor under the Political Science Department, who currently serves as a political analyst for the GMA Network and columnist at the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Heydarian argued the economic decline experienced during the Duterte administration is a result of the excessive importance given to the war on drugs, giving less value to other prominent issues such as poverty and health care. Other factors, he reasoned, are the nation’s current relationship with China, and issues on human rights and democracy as a result of the rise in extrajudicial killings.

Heydarian posed to question Duterte’s leadership, citing that while his ideals are relevant, his approach is not the way of the people.

 

What advocacy will you bring to the senate?

Seven senatoriables were present to participate in four rounds of discussion. The first round consisted of the candidates’ opening statement, covering the advocacy would they bring to the senate. Each senatoriable was given a minute and 30 seconds to say their piece.

Alejano advocated for the security of the whole nation, citing China’s abusive actions as the biggest threat affecting the livelihood of Filipino fishermen and farmers who provide the country’s food supply.

For Alunan, he believed in nation building, public safety, national security, and continuity. He stressed on the hands-on work for priority bills such as education reform, return of death penalty for certain crimes against humanity, and investments to build up the military defenses of the country.

The fight against increasing market prices was notioned by Colmenares, stating that this can be achieved by removing taxes on electricity, water, and oil. He also mentioned his intent to craft a law that would provide a higher and equal wages for all regions.

Diokno followed by addressing the injustice brought by the present administration and the campaign with their alleged fixation for “tarpaulins”. “Labanan ng tarpaulin ngayon eh. Hindi naman tayo gagawa ng tarpaulin sa senado, gagawa tayo ng batas,” he contested. (It’s a fight between tarpaulins, nowadays. We do not make tarpaulins in the senate; we make laws.)  The attorney centered his platform on justice, including justice in the court, economy, gender, and culture.

 

 

Francisco, meanwhile, pitched the idea that the solution to poverty is employment and livelihood. He aimed to make a law that will promote the country’s industrialization for the purpose of making more companies that can accommodate more employees.

Hilbay shared his humble beginnings of growing up as a kid from Tondo. Though his life was tough compared to others, he did his best to attend top universities such as University of the Philippines and University of Santo Tomas. He stands firm on his accomplishments of passing the Reproductive Health Bill and fighting for the Philippines against China, which he said he plans to continue doing should he win.

Ong narrated his experience from being a doctor for 25 years to help those in poverty. He aspired to provide free help for all through his Youtube channel which he noted had a million subscribers at present.

 

The mini debate

The second round of the discussion was a mini debate among senatoriables. A randomly chosen candidate will be the ‘main respondent’ to a certain question and is given a time limit of two minutes. He would then be followed by a ‘reactor’ who is given five minutes to respond. Subsequently, the ‘main respondent’ will have an additional minute to close the argument.

Free tuition law in tertiary level was the first issue discussed. The main respondent, Alejano, argued that in order to develop critical minds and leaders in the country, funding for students, teachers, and facilities is necessary. Ong, the reactor, supported Alejano’s claims and added that there should also be support for the health of students. He explained that neglected health concerns ultimately affects one’s capacity to learn.

Following this, an assessment of the Local Government Code of 1991, which defines the powers of provincial, municipal, and barangay systems was tackled. Alunan was chosen as the main respondent. As the first Interior Secretary to implement the Code, he articulated that there is a need for it to be amended. He stated that there is a rule stated in the Code that requires a reassessment be done every five years, or when the situation calls for it. He revealed this has never happened, thus, stressing the importance of having the Code reevaluated.

Hilbay, the reactor, said that the promise of the Philippine Constitution is decentralization. He added the most efficient process to implement this is to amend the Code. Alunan ended the debate by saying that giving attention to the Code would contribute to a smooth shift to federalism. “Unless we respect local autonomy [and] the separation of powers between national and local government, it will be very difficult to adapt to a new mindset and think that this will work,” he elaborated.

Colmenares was the main respondent on the topic of political dynasties. He argued that political dynasties causes poverty and should be strictly prohibited. The reactor, Alejano, was also against political dynasties and cited that “political maturity is not achieved by this means.” Colmenares concluded, “Ang basis ng boto ng tao ay [dapat] dahil sa kanilang plataporma, hindi dahil sa kanilang apelyido.”

(Voters should choose candidates because of their platforms, not because of their family name.)

 

 

The next issue discussed was about Maria Ressa’s recent arrest and the idea of press freedom. The main respondent, Diokno said that it is “obviously” an attack on press freedom and further illustrated that this has been done to other figures such as former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

The reactor, Alunan, disagreed with this statement because he believed that there was no assault on press freedom that occurred and argued that “libel [filed against Ressa] is an actual case.” Diokno further argued that “we have to wake up” as he believed that this was the third wave of attack, adding that the fourth wave will be focused on non-government organizations.

The following main respondent, Francisco, was asked about his take on federalism. He expressed that he will not prefer it if ever given a seat in the Senate since it reinforces corruption. He explained that political dynasties, senators, and congressmen will have the power to allocate more funds for themselves and use it for their own interests.

Colmenares, the reactor, shared the same sentiment and added that charter change should not be approved because it will create chaos. He cited as an example the event of choosing the successor in case of the death or removal of an incumbent president. He furthered that the vice president will only serve as the acting power until a new president is chosen.

In his concluding statement, Francisco corrected Colmenares and said that it is not the vice president who will serve as the acting power, but rather the senate president who would step up to serve as the acting president, which he argued makes the situation worse.

The last issue discussed was on the Universal Health Coverage Bill. Ong, the main reactor, argued that it is important for the bill to be passed as 20 to 30 million impoverished Filipinos would benefit from it if it was implemented successfully. He, however, noted that the budget allocated for this bill is lacking and not all Filipinos will be supported with medicinal care.

Diokno, the reactor, expressed that the vaccination confidence of Filipinos has decreased to 30 percent and should be recovered by stopping public hysteria on free treatments. Ong added to this by stating that in order to do so, there should be an effort to look at the pros and cons of vaccines and ensure quality for the safety of its recipients.

 

Yes or no

The third round was labeled as a fast talk round wherein the senatoriables are only able to agree or disagree to the statements without providing further explanation. They held up the love emoji board for ‘yes’ and the angry emoji board for ‘no’.

The first proposed question asks whether they are in favor of lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility, to which all senatoriables disagreed to. Same-sex marriage was then presented as the following statement and Alejano was the only candidate who was against it. Majority disagreed with the implementation of The Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Law, except for Ong who was in favor of it. The issue on rice importation with the imposition of tariffs was raised as the next statement; only Talunan and Ong were in favor.

The candidates’ support for mandatory Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) was also questioned, to which Colmenares, Diokno, and Hilbay disagreed to. For the resignation case of National Youth Commissioner Chair, Ronald Cardema—who recently received backlash for his remarks about taking away the scholarship of “rebellious” students—only Alunan and Ong disagreed. The final statement asks whether they are in favor of the commercialization of education, to which all candidates said no to.

 

Why vote for you?

In light of the event being centered on the youth, the final question and focal point of the candidates’ closing remarks was the question, “Why should the youth vote for you?”

Each candidate expressed their trouble in “asking” the youth to vote for them, so instead compromised by stating where they came from and how this serves as a basis for their advocacies. Their closing statements spoke through the youth by addressing them as the next generation that would hold the key to the future. “Kayo na ang next eh, matanda na kami eh. So pag ginagawa niyo na yung work—marami na ang leaders, mas less na ang gagawin natin,” Ong expressed.

(You are the next [generation], we’re already too old. So when it’s your turn to do the work—there will be more leaders, the workload would be less.)