The First Vice Presidential Debate: Refuting the “Spare Tire” Label
Screengrab from CNN Philippines Official YouTube Account.
TAKING OFF from the first two presidential debates, the first-ever vice presidential debate in the country’s history offered the public a refreshing view of their electoral choices in 2016.
On April 10, 2016, a different set of candidates engaged in the discussion of some of the country’s most pressing issues. Their exchange seemed more energetic, perhaps more invigorating for voters who have seen too many “presidentiables” in this long campaign season. Gathered together, these politicians belied the stereotype long held about the position they’re seeking, the second seat in power usually and ironically relegated by the public to the sidelines.
Is it the deficit among “presidentiables” that has made the vice presidential candidates more interesting? Is it the presence of Bongbong Marcos among them that has made the selection more charged, with many voters fixated on the implications of a Marcos return to power?
The third of the Commission on Elections’ PiliPinas Debates 2016 series, the event was organized in partnership with CNN Philippines, BusinessMirror, Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) and the University of Santo Tomas, which provided the debate venue.The vice presidential debate was moderated by CNN Philippines anchors Pia Hontiveros and Pinky Webb, who were joined by a panel of journalists in asking the questions: CNN Philippines senior correspondents David Santos and Ina Andolong; BusinessMirror columnist John Mangun; and CNN International journalists Kristie Lu Stout, Andrew Stevens and Ivan Watson. CNN Philippines also gathered questions from social media and the audience. Topics included corruption, human rights, poverty, political dynasties, traffic, urban issues, connectivity and foreign policy.
The format gave each candidate the opportunity to answer the questions the moderators and the panel asked, and only allowed rebuttals when other candidates and their respective running mates were mentioned or alluded to. This arrangement facilitated a more substantial and more organized presentation of opinions and platforms, and could very well be the best feature of last Sunday’s (April 10) debate, if not the best so far of the series.
Heated exchanges began when the question on corruption was asked. It was during this first round that the rebuttals and counter-rebuttals of Senators Alan Peter Cayetano and Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. dominated the debate proper, taking up the first hour of the three-hour program. Much later, the question on human rights violations during martial law once again put Marcos on the hot seat, but this time it was Representative Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo who put forward her counter-arguments.
Fact-checking the PiliPinas Debates 2016The PiliPinas Debates 2016 is a series of three presidential and one vice presidential debates organized by the Commission on Elections in partnership with the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) and some of the Philippines’ biggest media organizations. The series intends to assist the electorate in making informed choices and to encourage candidates to focus on the issues that matter most to the voting public. Since the airing of the first presidential debate last February 21, several media organizations have been fact-checking the claims made by the candidates. The fact-checking reports they generate are especially helpful in accurately informing the public about the candidates’ positions on the issues as well as on the particulars of the claims they make, such as the status of pending projects, their costs, and other facts and figures. Following the two presidential and the vice presidential debates, here are the fact-checks that news organizations have produced so far:
The last presidential debate will be aired on April 24. With only less than a month before the national and local elections, the media should continue reporting not only the platforms of candidates, but also the accuracy of their claims. |
Both print and broadcast media picked up on the two instances of Marcos’ being grilled by his fellow candidates.
Commendably, the candidates refrained from the unruly mudslinging that was so characteristic of the second presidential debate, and instead grounded their arguments on claims made by their opponents. The candidates were also relatively calm and collected, and proved to be knowledgeable on current issues and well-informed about legislation that had been passed and bills still pending approval that could provide solutions to the country’s most critical concerns. This should not come as a surprise since all the candidates are, in fact, lawmakers.
Compared to the two previous presidential debates, the April 10 vice presidential debate was more orderly and more engaging. Notably, the candidates were also asked about international issues such as the disputed territories in the South Sea China Sea. It proved to be a challenge to the candidates running for the country’s second highest post, especially since the vice president, under the Constitution, has no specific responsibilities other than those assigned by the president. In accepting this challenge, the first vice presidential candidates in effect refuted the “spare tire” label often attached to the president’s second-in-command.
The Second VP Debate: Motherhood StatementsABS-CBN 2’s own “Harapan ng Bise” debate held last April 17 paled in comparison with the Comelec-sanctioned first vice presidential debate. The festive, circus-like atmosphere of the debate made it look like a typical miting de avance, with each candidate being cheered on by his or her own group ofnoisy supporters. Moderated by anchors Alvin Elchico and Lynda Jumilla, the debate focused on issues ABS-CBN described in a network release as“the most urgent national concerns based on a Pulse Asia survey” such as job security, peace and order, health, and education. A panel composed of veteran journalist Tina Monzon-Palma and political analysts Julio Teehankee and Edna Co asked the candidates questions, as did viewers whose questions were sourced from their social media accounts. But not all the candidates were given the chance to answer questions, which were asked first, after which the moderators or panel members picked who should answer them by drawing the name of the candidate from a fishbowl. In adopting this method,which was also used in the first presidential debate, “Harapan ng Bise” replicated the shortcomings of the latter and reduced the debate to a talk show, eliciting mostly motherhood statements from the vice presidential candidates.
|
Leave a Reply