A number of local electoral candidates failed to offer clear and consistent stances on key environmental issues during the Green Vote 2025 Public Forum held last April 15.

The Green Vote Survey sought candidate positions on six major topics: watershed protection, sustainable tourism, solid waste management, urban livability, good agricultural practices, and clean energy. 

Notably, no candidate for mayor participated in the survey.

A total of 29 candidates—running for positions of vice mayor, district congressman, and city councilor—responded to the survey. Of the four vice mayoral candidates, only Marcos Alcebar responded to the survey.

Only one congressional candidate from each of the first and second districts responded to the survey—Mags Maglana and Javi Garcia Campos, respectively. 

None of the five congressional candidates from the third district answered the survey.

Among city council candidates, participation remained low, with only 8 out of 23 first district council aspirants, 6 out of 25 second district council candidates, and none from the 27 third district council candidates responding to the survey. 

Ateneo Public Interest and Legal Advocacy Center (APILA) Director and one of the reactors of the forum, Atty. Romeo Cabarde Jr. underscored the implications of non-participation.

“When a candidate chooses not to respond, that is not neutral. It tells us something about how they prioritize—or don’t prioritize—environmental governance,” Cabarde said.

Local environmental policies

On quarry regulation, 22 candidates supported its passage, one opposed, and six had reservations. Regarding tourism in watershed and conservation areas, only two expressed full support, while eight rejected the idea and 19 had reservations, citing environmental concerns.

For Waste-to-Energy (WTE) technologies, 18 said yes, four said no, and seven had reservations, flagging issues such as hazardous emissions and weak public consultation. 

The proposed ban on single-use plastics received strong support from 23 candidates, with only one opposed and four with reservations, citing potential negative impacts to marketplaces and vendors. 

The shift to renewable energy was widely supported, with 27 in favor and two with reservations. These candidates called for a phased transition with adequate community support.

25 candidates supported the creation of a local environmental code, while four had reservations due to unfamiliarity with the policy and the need for further study.

The Samal Island–Davao Connector (SIDC) Bridge drew a more divided stance: 17 in favor, 11 hesitant due to environmental risks, and one abstention.

Local infrastructure and agricultural policies

On the Davao Bus Project, 25 candidates responded positively, and four expressed reservations related to the need for local manufacturing and the current state of public transport systems. 

For the vehicle coding and purchase restriction policy, 11 candidates agreed, while 14 had reservations, saying the city should focus first on traffic management, air pollution, and improving existing transport infrastructure.

24 candidates supported the introduction of a Local Green Building Code, while three had reservations, arguing that existing national laws may already address these needs.

Support for organic farming was strong, with 26 candidates in favor and three expressing concern over costs of certification and the need for gradual implementation.

The ban on aerial spraying and pesticide drift earned 19 yes votes, eight reservations, and two abstentions. 

On institutionalizing groups like Bantay Bukid and Bantay Tubig, 28 candidates responded positively, with one against.

On amending the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) to improve the issuance of ancestral domain titles, 17 candidates agreed, two disagreed, nine had reservations, and one abstained, with many citing the need for further study of the law.

Responses as a reference point 

Cabarde noted that the answers serve as an initial reference point but must be viewed critically and that the public must follow through even after the campaign season ends.

“These answers give us something to return to in the future. It allows us to follow up after the elections and see if their actions match their words.”

IDIS Executive Director Atty. Mark Peñalver echoed the call for sustained scrutiny, raising the possibility that some responses may have been shaped more by public expectations than personal conviction.

“Candidates may be giving answers they think the community wants to hear. So we have to take them with a grain of salt and ask whether these are truly their positions.”

Peñalver acknowledged the limitations of expecting scientific rigor from candidates but stressed the importance of informed responses.

“We can’t expect policymakers to provide scientific certainty. But at the very least, they should be aware of the environmental implications of their stances, like potential hazardous emissions from WTE (Waste to Energy) or the climate impact of converting farmland into residential areas.”

The forum held at the Grand Men Seng Hotel last April 15, 2025 was organized by the Interfacing Development Interventions for Sustainability (IDIS), gave the public a first look at the stances and commitments of Davao City’s candidates for the 2025 midterm elections on key environmental issues.