N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (February 9, 8:00 a.m.) where I write a weekly column (Philippine Fantasy).

The presidential campaign officially starts today (February 9) and the debate organized yesterday morning (February 8) is supposed to give the Filipino electorate an idea of where the presidential candidates stand on pressing issues of the day.

Notwithstanding the usual rhetoric of good governance under their watch, it is good to know that the eight candidates have some specific goals if elected into the highest office of the land.

1. Sen. Noynoy Aquino, for example, is in favor of adding two more years in basic education to improve the quality of education in the country.
2. Olongapo City Councilor JC delos Reyes is generally against foreign ownership of land but wants to explore the possibility of “limited ownership” of land for foreigners.
3. Sen. Richard Gordon is in favor of increasing the salary of teachers to PhP40,000 (US$857.26) monthly and he wants to raise the necessary funds by imposing a tax on texting (i.e., SMS or short message system).
4. Sen. Jamby Madrigal, for her part, wants to limit the advertising of junk food and milk products for babies 0 to 2 years old and impose a tax on softdrinks.
5. Environmentalist Nick Perlas wants to set up an Office of Civil Society Affairs so that “civil society” would be integrated into the government.
6. Former Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro believes that opening up the economy is a guarantee that it will not be controlled by a few.
7. Evangelist Eddie Villanueva wants to study the possibility of repealing Presidential Decree No. 1177, an old law that provides for automatic appropriation for debt payment in the national budget.
8. Sen. Manny Villar, on the other hand, sees the need to confront deficit spending.

The ninth candidate, former President Joseph Estrada, did not attend the debate, claiming that the leading newspaper that organized the event is biased against him.

The dearth of specific courses of action, however, is very evident as the eight candidates ended up giving general statements when asked about what they would do to effect meaningful change in the country. The debate focused on their unified stand against corruption and the need to improve the economy. Not surprisingly, all of them made a promise not to steal from the government coffers and argued that eradicating corruption could help provide more funds to basic services like health and education.

The empty – and at times questionable – rhetoric proves to be the order of the day as all candidates tried to sell themselves to a broader electorate. Consciously or unconsciously, they made promises that are either impossible to fulfill or hard to define.

1. Villanueva, for example, promises “absolute press freedom” if elected President even if existing theories in communication in journalism clearly defy this point.
2. Teodoro is in favor of consulting with indigenous peoples for whatever “extraction activities” will be done in their ancestral domains, unmindful of the fact that indigenous peoples through the years have been against the wanton exploitation of their land.
3. Villar wants to “let the people decide” on the issue of foreign ownership of land, without giving any specific steps on how this could be done and whether or not a healthy debate would happen on the issue if he becomes President.
4. Gordon claims that Filipinos should “make themselves look good” to foreign investors to attain development, which leads one to ask the role of local industries in his concept of national development.
5. Perlas is not against mining per se, but he wants to change the mining law so that there would be “equitable distribution of income,” a big departure from the stand of anti-mining activists and environmentalists like him who had called on government to repeal the Mining Act.

Debates are supposed to be venues to test the mettle of the candidates, but their arguments are still neither here nor there based on the quality of the answers they had provided. To be fair to the candidates, the limited time prevented them from fully explaining their stand on issues. In addition, the questions are, for the most part, both broad and person-specific, preventing candidates from giving answers to common questions for better comparison of where they stand.

If the recent debate were any indication, the candidates’ arguments are currently neither here nor there. The presidential campaign in the coming weeks should help clarify their stand on issues. Is it possible for the campaign to be elevated to a higher level of discourse? Would presidential candidates be willing to stick to the issues in their political ads? Would it be possible for them to refrain from muckraking?

As the candidates prepare to answer yes to all of these questions (as they are expected to do so), the Filipino voters should then ask themselves what they would do to the candidates who break their promise to wage an intelligent campaign. Empty rhetoric, after all, should never be tolerated.