Report from THE ONLINE DESK
A week after the UPLB USC-CSC Elections Opening Salvo, Buklod-UPLB has released a statement about its decision to not attend the said event.
In a statement posted Tuesday morning, Daryll Keith Montoya, chairperson of the political party, mentioned two reasons why they decided to not attend the opening salvo.
“Buklod declined the invitation on the grounds that: 1.) we do not subscribe or practice mudslinging, and 2.) we believe that the miting de avance, electoral debate and our campaign are more than enough means to sustain the intellectual discourse that the general electorate needs,” Montoya said.
Montoya recognized that the Perspective was willing to revise the program.
“We acknowledged this as a fair effort by the organizers, but upon deliberation we still stood firm with our decision to decline on the same principle stated on our initial response,” Montoya said.
The Perspective received Buklod’s first decision to decline on the afternoon of April 9. Upon learning this, this publication reached out to Buklod, saying the Perspective is willing to take out the “mudslinging” part of the program.
Salvo mechanics explained
One of the segments of the opening salvo was supposed to allow each party representative to ask questions to the rival party representative for 15 minutes.
Part of the mechanics of the opening salvo sent to the parties read: “You will be given a chance to “throw mud” at other parties. You will be given 15 minutes for your “mudslinging” towards each party. The sequence shall be determined through toss coin.”
The mechanics sent to the parties also read that “[any] direct or indirect verbal and physical assault is strictly prohibited” as part of proper decorum expected from the participants.
Opening salvo ‘not different’ from other events
Montoya also asserted that it seemed that the objectives of the opening salvo were no different from the two other pre-election events organized by the Perspective: the electoral debate and USC miting de avance.
“As was indicative of our final response to the organizers, we collectively questioned the method of the program. It was specifically indicated that the parties will be represented by “campaign managers or the officers in charge” only, not the candidates themselves. This would compromise the need for the audience to “get to know” the parties and candidates directly, which was what the organizers are promoting in the event.
“Now, when the mudslinging was proposed to be taken out, we have observed that the event, for all its intents and purposes, is not so different with the purpose of our party’s campaign, electoral debate, and miting de avance—all of which are traditionally held within the campaign period. So, with all due respect to the organizers we chose to maximize these three avenues,” Montoya’s statement read. [P]