That was an interesting presidential interview hosted by GMA topnotch news anchor, Jessica Soho.
Taped as live, it gave us a glimpse of the four presidential candidates – Vice President Leni Robredo, Senators Ping Lacson and Manny Pacquiao and Manila Mayor Isko Moreno.
Leading presidential candidate, former Senator Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. opted to decline the invitation because they believe Soho will not be fair and will center in on his father’s dictatorial rule more than other issues.
Of course, Marcos’ camp believes that showbiz talk show host, Boy Abunda is better than Soho’s platform which is probably why they also made viral that interview with another showbiz host, Toni Gonzaga.
Besides, Abunda’s show is more predictable and they can prepare well for that starting with the “talk to yourself in the mirror” segment.
But in general, like what happened here during the mayoral debate in Bacolod, the one who does not attend sends a wrong signal. And indeed, comments on social media among the undecided and even those who were supposed to be converts to the Marcos camp, had a change of heart.
So let’s talk about those who were courageous enough to present their platforms and how quick they were on very tricky, yet significant issues.
Yes, from the get go, I’ve said that I am Pink and that Soho interview reaffirmed my choice why. Robredo came prepared and she had basis for why she will make sure things are done differently. She had a clear action plan and it was verbalized with sincerity. Of course, I was wearing rose or pink-colored lenses so to speak, thus, to me, it all sounded with purity.
Next choice would be Lacson. While I may not like the issues of human rights violation attached to his name during his law enforcement career days, Lacson answered all hard hitting questions without flinching and he was very decisive in his statements.
Like Robredo, he had very concrete plans and I really like the way he did not skirt on sensitive issues but answered them point blank. The only thing that has not fully convinced me of Lacson was the question of intention. Though he did say this may be his last hurrah after being in public service for a long time, there is always that big question mark hovering over his character.
My third choice would be YormeIsko who, from the media standpoint, probably gave some of the best sound bites. However, he seemed to be a prototype of what President Rodrigo Duterte was, during the last presidential campaign.
Like Digong, Isko is a populist who likes to peddle himself as the answer to the downtrodden, always emphasizing his humble beginnings. At one point, Soho even asked whether he is pitting the majority poor against the elite, but fortunately, he quick to get himself out of that hole. After all, from rumors, he is being backed by many business groups.
Isko is charming but what is scary is how he answers all issues with attainable actions that he supposedly has implemented in Manila. It is reminiscent of how Digong sold the idea of a peaceful and progressive Davao that will be replicated in the entire country. Unfortunately, that never happened and can we afford to have another prototype of him in the next six years?
Pacquiao is Pacquiao. Although he clearly answered with less conviction than the three other contenders, he came in cute. There was no pretentions from this guy but it was also clear that he may be the least capable among the four attendees to lead this country.
More so that we are in disarray because of this pandemic. Not to mention the corruption that has turned worse since this administration took over. To hear that P1.4 Trillion was lost to corruption in just two years sends shivers.
We have a little over three months before the election. The unification talk, although it may be difficult at this point because the candidates are, as Leni pointed out, already very invested in the campaign, there is still that possibility.
Whether that happens or not, let us take this opportunity to study our candidates, from the local to the national. The outcome will be our future. We should not leave it at the hands of those who cannot present clear action plans on why they deserve to be chosen.
Just like in the local, the national interviews gave added mileage and points to the courageous attendees. It was clearly to their advantage and from group chats, Leni was able to convert many, but so did Ping and Isko. It’s the loss of the no-shows.
It’s only the first of many but the real measure of these candidates will come when the Comelec holds the presidential and vice-presidential debates. Although participation in the debate is not mandatory, this must be a commitment by the candidates to the electorate, to allow them to make the right choice.
I hope there will be no more excuses or accusations of bias and what-have you for this debate. Indeed, they owe it to the people to see who can best bring us out of this crisis.*