A Student's Reaction Paper on the 2nd Presidential Debate

The second presidential debate, hosted by TV5, was relatively a letdown for me. Given that I was not able to view the first presidential debate, I had high hopes in mind.


What first disappointed me was when it was announced that Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago would not make an appearance. Having known the senator for her intellectual capacity and her bluntness, I was looking forward to hearing the different stands that she had on different national issues. Nevertheless, I kept in mind that this arrangement was still for the benefit of the citizens, as it would widen our knowledge on how our presidential candidates present themselves.

During the day of the debate, I became even more uninterested in the debate because of the delay in the beginning. One would think that a national event with a critical cause would be executed in the most meticulous manner.

As the debate finally took place, one of the points raised that appealed to my interest the most was that of the freedom of information. With regard to the government, transparency is an essential practice that institutions that hold incomprehensible responsibility should exercise. Ironically, Vice-President Jejomar Binay stated that the freedom of information is the answer to graft and corruption despite his infamous reputation of being one of the most corrupt politicians.


Another interesting point raised was that of how the presidential candidates would compensate for those in the Php30,000 income bracket without adding infrastructure. Binay stated that those that fall under this bracket should not be taxed. I do not agree with this because as citizens, we should share equal rights and responsibilities, therefore, we should all pay taxes. The difference should only be in the appropriations of the taxes that each income bracket should pay. Roxas proposed that a bill should be passed for these tax earners and that capital is to be used for them to earn. I honestly did not understand what Roxas was getting at. Poe emphasized the importance of permanent jobs and stable salaries with the lowering of income taxes. I would have wanted her to expound on how she plans on doing this. Duterte said that the appropriations are already good and that the only problem is corruption. Although I find his answer lacking further elaboration, I appreciate that he pointed out the grave effect of corruption.


The last point that I thought was crucial to discuss was the controversial issue of typhoon Yolanda. Among other things like the Zamboanga siege, Secretary Mar Roxas handled these national calamities. Although he presented statistics to support his notion that the national government handled these calamities efficiently, I can say through simple observation that these calamities were handled poorly. Until today, Tacloban still needs immediate attention and restructuring.


As the debate came to a conclusion, I still found myself disappointed in its execution as I found the different stands of the presidential candidates still unclear. Moreover, there are still a number of issues to be discussed. Despite these opinions, I believe that Mayor Rodrigo Duterte presented himself sufficiently well. What I liked about his responses were that they were straight to the point contrary to the other presidential candidates who would go around in circles and try to dodge the main points of the questions.




Janna Rei R. Yuvallos


*This reaction paper was submitted to her Professor