It was as entertaining as it was informative to watch Saturday's senatorial debate organized by CNN Philippines and held at University of Santo Tomas.
Eleven senatorial hopefuls were asked to elaborate on their positions on several pressing national issues such as the war on drugs, disaster resiliency, territorial claims on the West Philippine Sea, loan agreements with China, power and water, and the restoration of the death penalty.
The candidates expressed their views and described their platforms in varying levels of eloquence, substance, credibility—and emotional mastery.
Other hopefuls who did not participate in the debate say this is more for the benefit of the newer faces who have not had the opportunity to talk about their priorities and positions. Senator Jinggoy Estrada, for instance, says he would rather debate on the Senate floor. Senator Juan Edgardo Angara, for his part, says his work is already known to many.
The Commission on Elections says it cannot anymore organize a debate among senatorial candidates because there is no longer time.
It's good, thus, that the public can still witness debates which tell us a lot more about those seeking to supposedly serve us than the witty phrases their staff put together.
Saturday's three-hour-long debate, for instance, gave the audience a sense of whether the candidates truly know the issues and the factors affecting them. We were also able to see how well the candidates expressed themselves and connected with the people, and how well—or how badly—they conducted themselves in the face of being confronted with different views.
Reserving the debates for after the elections would defeat the purpose of evaluating and selecting the candidates based on merit. Skipping them because one is already well-known robs the people of the opportunity to operate beyond name recall, a despicable voting tendency that presumes voters are not capable of critical thinking.
So by all means, in these last crucial days before we elect our leaders, let us listen to them go on record with their commitments so we can later hold them to their promises—or discover their inadequacies now, before it is too late.
