Sunday’s debate gave us, among others, a preview of what each presidency would look like. Four presidential candidates answered questions from journalists and from each other on various national issues, but their demeanor in doing so was even more telling than the words they spewed.
All four candidates—Vice President Jejomar Binay, Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, Senator Grace Poe and former Secretary Manuel Roxas II—fended off questions regarding issues of corruption, human rights violation, patriotism and incompetence, respectively, with some coming off better prepared and tougher than the others.
Binay, despite being a lawyer, seemed particularly off even as he repeated himself numerous times accusing Poe of abandoning her country to become a citizen of the United States. Duterte gave the highest number of sound bytes, pummeling Roxas with sweeping accusations and calling him names. Poe cleverly laid a trap for Binay by saying working hard in a foreign country is so much better than staying here and plundering public funds. When the vice president took offense, she said she was not referring to him. Roxas, for his part, was visibly upset by attacks on his person. He appeared the most out of touch among all the four candidates.
There were rules, to be sure, but these were taken as mere suggestions. There was that confusion on being allowed to bring notes to the stage, which was said to be the reason the debate started more than an hour later than it was supposed to. There was the rule on how long a candidate was supposed to speak and whether any interruptions may be made. Much too often, we heard the phrase “this is my time” uttered by a candidate, belaboring a point but finding himself or herself interrupted by a rival.
In the end, we saw that for all their talk about respecting the rule of law, the candidates tended to bend it—in varying degrees—to suit their own purposes.
Sunday’s debate was decidedly racier than the first one held last month in Cagayan de Oro City. Then, there was a semblance of an effort to be nice to each other. In the latter one, there was no attempt to mask their growing disdain for their rivals. This was their time, indeed.
The more conscientious voters—those who try to put some thought into the exercise—normally consider the candidates’ educational background and professional experience to determine their fitness for the job. We might add one more measure: how they speak, respect simple rules, address their opponents, defend themselves and present their arguments.
Whether the insight we got from the debate was worth the delay is arguable. Whether it should be a factor in shaping the decisions of those who still have not made up their minds is not.
