The recent ANC Leadership Forum, held in cooperation with the Ateneo de Manila University, was a timely step in the right direction. For the first time, some (though not all) of those who are interested in running for president allowed themselves to be subjected to questions concerning their political principles, motivations, platforms and policies.

Senators Francis Escudero, Richard Gordon and Manuel Roxas II, Pampanga Gov. Ed Panlilio, and Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro allowed themselves to be grilled publicly by veteran TV journalists Tina Monzon-Palma and Ricky Carandang. They certainly faced uncomfortable questions: Escudero, for example, on his campaign donors; Panlilio on his stand concerning family planning; Roxas on his wedding plan motivations; Gordon and Teodoro on the political and legal legacies of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

However, Vice President Noli de Castro, Senators Panfilo Lacson, Loren Legarda and Manuel Villar Jr. and MMDA Chair Bayani Fernando, for one reason or another, were no shows. Perhaps what these no-shows have in common is the old-fashioned political dictum espoused by the late Sen. Genaro Magsaysay: ?less talk, less mistake.? But if that is what they thought, they are out of sync with the times.

In 1998 and in 2004, the candidates with great drawing power?Joseph Estrada and Fernando Poe Jr.?shied away from opportunities to debate their rivals. They preferred more controlled environments, although the late Max Soliven?s friendly one-on-one interview with Poe proved disastrous, anyway. Even then the incumbent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who was seeking election, declined to go head-to-head against other candidates, and so robbed the public of a chance to see her square off against those aspiring to replace her.

Instead of gamely sitting down and taking it in stride, it seems the citizenry?s appetite for public debates has been whetted, instead of dulled, by the reluctance of candidates to confront each other?and be confronted by the public and the media. Public demand for public debates has been sustained, and media efforts to meet that demand have been amply rewarded.

When the GMA Network held a senatorial candidate?s forum in 2007, media observers were astounded by the healthy ratings and broad public interest in the exercise. Not a few political observers concluded that the ability?or lack of it?of certain candidates to answer questions had a tangible impact on how the candidates did in the elections.

For this reason, if the Leadership Forum represents a laudable kick-off to the 2010 campaign, there remains much to be done, and it must begin with a common commitment by all aspiring candidates to subject themselves to scrutiny by the media, the public, and their political peers.

Changes in voting behavior don?t happen overnight; shifts take place sometimes imperceptibly over many years, or more noticeably but over the span of two or more electoral cycles. Such was the case with the cresting of the show-biz phenomenon in national politics, which has significantly subsided; and so, it seems, is the case with the manner by which the electorate ponders on qualifications of presidential hopefuls. The era of the ?barrio-by-barrio? campaign, with its platform speeches, is over. The mass media are now the national stage on which the presidential contest unfolds. As this development was taking place, candidates at first enjoyed the ability to carefully control their media appearances, focusing on professionally-crafted advertisements, for example. But the citizenry has become wary of the manufactured soundbite, of campaigns conducted in isolation from the rest of the candidates. What we, the people, want, is a sober and serious discussion of the issues, and a glimpse into the policies future chief executives intend to implement once in office.

This can only take place if candidates can challenge each other and be challenged in turn. This can best take place if media, as a whole, transcend professional rivalries and address the public?s thirst for serious and sober debate. But if this cannot be done, then let the debate programs multiply.