THE INQUIRER-SPONSORED presidential debate at the University of the Philippines on Monday turned out to be a free-for-all on too many issues. There was hardly any confrontation among the eight presidential candidates on hard issues.

According to the Inquirer research staff, 72 questions were asked, but many in the audience that packed the UP Theater left grumbling that there were still many questions that should have been asked, aside from those vetted by the committee which managed the debate. There were more interrogators than interrogated?nine, grouped into three panels, one on political and legal issues, a second on social issues, and a third on economic issues.

Designed to make the forum snappy, the format of interrogation called for the members of the panel to put questions to each of the candidates (not one common question to all), under a very limited time. The first round of questioning gave two minutes for both question and answer; the second, one minute and 30 seconds; and the third round, 1 minute and 15 seconds. With these time restrictions, the forum could not but be superficial, which was what happened.

No doubt the forum was lively, marked by spontaneous audience participation and interaction, and the debate fueled intense partisanship among the audience. While the forum may be given high marks for audience participation, I doubt whether the debate lived up to the debate?s purpose to show the ?candidates? character or lack of it? and expose his or her ?confidence or lack of it.?

From my point of view, this framework was designed mainly for public entertainment rather than to define the candidates? position on hard issues. This format allowed candidates who were quick on their feet in parrying questions to shine.

Inquirer president Sandy Prieto-Romualdez described the debate as the paper?s contribution to the ?country?s most important election in a generation.? There?s no dispute that the May election is the most important election ?in a generation,? but it?s hard to share her hope that ?this event will help shape public discourse today and the next 90 days and beyond.? The forum?s format did not lend to illumination of the voters on issues that contrast the candidates? positions. The format did not allow a clash of ideas over platforms and policies differentiating the candidates.

The debate?s agenda was clogged with issues and it was structured to dodge confrontation on hard issues. It provided a good playing field for candidates with glib tongues. The panelists asked questions on a wide range of issues, such as the midnight appointment of the Supreme Court chief justice, military unrest, corruption, political dynasties, private armies, separation of Church and State, peace and order in Mindanao, the environment, pork barrel, constitutional change, poverty, and the Arroyo administration?s stimulus package. The panels jammed these issues into the voters? consciousness, creating mental constipation. The result was that it was impossible to put focus on issues and bring about a confrontation of platforms among the eight candidates.

True, there was a semblance of debate between the two leading candidates in the surveys?Senators Benigno Aquino III and Manuel Villar?over new taxes and the budget deficit. Aquino was also queried about his position on the Reproductive Health Bill, which he hedged by saying all sectors should be consulted on the legislation.

Villar tackled the tired issue of constitutional change, saying it was not one of his priorities. Villar came under attack from Sen. Jamby Madrigal over the C-5 road extension project, his lavish election spending on TV, as well as from Sen. Dick Gordon on the election spending issue. Villar tartly replied that it was his money he was spending, but no one asked where he got the millions being spent on the ads. Administration candidate Gilbert Teodoro was asked about his political and economic platform, which he was prepared to spell out, but thanks to the tight time allocation the audience was mercifully spared a lengthy and boring peroration.

The debate was scintillating and sparkled at certain points such as when Madrigal was asked about the price of galunggung and salted eggs or if she would allow her French husband to meddle in politics, or when a question was put to Aquino about his meddlesome sister Kris, who raises anxieties that she might be the power behind an Aquino presidency.

When it was her turn to speak, Madrigal did not miss any chance to carry on her running battle with Villar, against whom she initiated charges in the Senate over the C-5 project. Asked whether she found anything good with Villar, she noted that he looked good with his dyed hair. Villar?s hair is a non-issue, but it illustrates the kind of debate and the mix of issues harvested by the Inquirer?s forum. There were no sharp exchanges on policies and platforms. Economic issues took a back seat to trivia.

There was a hidden issue lurking behind the so-called debate among eight politicians, in a debate agenda that was designed with multiple issues, a framework that frustrated one-on-one confrontation. The debate failed to join the issues. It took place under the shadow of recent surveys finding Aquino and Villar in a statistical tie. The question is: Did the debate change minds to allow Aquino or Villar to break the tie?

The second edition of the debate should be a face-off between them.