Facts:
The Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951, To further strengthen their defense and security relationship. Under the treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft.
On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would have extended the presence of US military bases in the Philippines.
On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other things, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).This resulted to a series of conferences and negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.
On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E. Estrada, through respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs, ratified the VFA. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting through respondent Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, officially transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines,the Instrument of Ratification, the letter of the President and the VFA, for concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition, petitioners – as legislators, non-governmental organizations, citizens and taxpayers – assail the constitutionality of the VFA and impute to herein respondents grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the agreement.
Petitioner contends, under they provision cited, the “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities” may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are sufficiently met: a) it must be a treaty,b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress, and c) recognized as such by the other contracting state.
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section 21 Article VII is applicable so that, what is requires for such treaty to be valid and effective is the concurrence in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the senate.
Issue:
Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Art VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution?
Ruling:
Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops or facilities should apply in the instant case.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. Sec. 21 Art. VII, which respondent invokes, reads: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate. Sec. 25 Art. XVIII provides : “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the RP and the US concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in and when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senate by the other contracting state”.
The first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and international agreements in general with a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties and international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage or particular designation requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.
In contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence of foreign military bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. Both constitutional provisions share some common ground. The fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that Senate extended its concurrence under the same provision is immaterial.
Facts:
Beginning January of year 2002, personnel from the armed forces of the United States of America started arriving in Mindanao to take part, in conjunction with the Philippine military, in “Balikatan 02-1.” They are a simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United States in 1951. Its aim is to enhance the strategic and technological capabilities of our armed forces through joint training with its American counterparts; the “Balikatan” is the largest such training exercise directly supporting the MDT’s objectives. It is this treaty to which the VFA adverts and the obligations thereunder which it seeks to reaffirm.
On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise.
Issue:
Whether “Balikatan 02-1” activities covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement?
Ruling:
To resolve this, it is necessary to refer to the VFA itself. The VFA permits United States personnel to engage, on an impermanent basis, in “activities,” the exact meaning of which was left undefined. The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is couched in the negative, in that United States personnel must “abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political activity.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and 32 contains provisos governing interpretations of international agreements. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an examination of the text, which is presumed to verbalize the parties’ intentions. The Convention likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the meaning of terms, which it refers to as the context of the treaty, as well as other elements may be taken into account alongside the aforesaid context.
It appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word .’activities” arose from accident. It was deliberately made that way to give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation. In this manner, visiting US forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes other than military. As conceived, the joint exercises may include training on new techniques of patrol and surveillance to protect the nation’s marine resources, sea search-and-rescue operations to assist vessels in distress, disaster relief operations, civic action projects such as the building of school houses, medical and humanitarian missions, and the like.
Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is only logical to assume that .’Balikatan 02-1,” a “mutual anti- terrorism advising, assisting and training exercise,” falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement.
Facts:
S.C. JOHNSON AND SON, INC., a domestic corporation organized and operating under the Philippine laws, entered into a license agreement with SC Johnson and Son, United States of America (USA), a non-resident foreign corporation based in the U.S.A. pursuant to which the [respondent] was granted the right to use the trademark, patents and technology owned by the latter including the right to manufacture, package and distribute the products covered by the Agreement and secure assistance in management, marketing and production from SC Johnson and Son, U. S. A.
The said License Agreement was duly registered with the Technology Transfer Board of the Bureau of Patents, Trade Marks and Technology Transfer under Certificate of Registration No. 8064.For the use of the trademark or technology, [respondent] was obliged to pay SC Johnson and Son, USA royalties based on a percentage of net sales and subjected the same to 25% withholding tax on royalty payments which [respondent] paid for the period covering July 1992 to May 1993 in the total amount of P1,603,443.00
On October 29, 1993, [respondent] filed with the International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) of the BIR a claim for refund of overpaid withholding tax on royalties arguing that, “the antecedent facts attending [respondent's] case fall squarely within the same circumstances under which said MacGeorge and Gillete rulings were issued. Since the agreement was approved by the Technology Transfer Board, the preferential tax rate of 10% should apply to the [respondent]. We therefore submit that royalties paid by the [respondent] to SC Johnson and Son, USA is only subject to 10% withholding tax pursuant to the most-favored nation clause of the RP-US Tax Treaty [Article 13 Paragraph 2 (b) (iii)] in relation to the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty [Article 12 (2) (b)]” (Petition for Review [filed with the Court of Appeals]
The RP-US Tax Treaty states that:
1) Royalties derived by a resident of one of the Contracting States from sources within the other Contracting State may be taxed by both Contracting States.
2) However, the tax imposed by that Contracting State shall not exceed.
a) In the case of the United States, 15 percent of the gross amount of the royalties, and
b) In the case of the Philippines, the least of:
(i) 25 percent of the gross amount of the royalties;
(ii) 15 percent of the gross amount of the royalties, where the royalties are paid by a corporation registered with the Philippine Board of Investments and engaged in preferred areas of activities; and
(iii) the lowest rate of Philippine tax that may be imposed on royalties of the same kind paid under similar circumstances to a resident of a third State.
The RP-Germany Tax Treaty provides:
(2) However, such royalties may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise, and according to the law of that State, but the tax so charged shall not exceed:
b) 10 percent of the gross amount of royalties arising from the use of, or the right to use, any patent, trademark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or from the use of or the right to use, industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience.
For as long as the transfer of technology, under Philippine law, is subject to approval, the limitation of the tax rate mentioned under b) shall, in the case of royalties arising in the Republic of the Philippines, only apply if the contract giving rise to such royalties has been approved by the Philippine competent authorities.
The Commissioner did not act on said claim for refund. Private respondent S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (S.C. Johnson) then filed a petition for review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).The Court of Tax Appeals rendered its decision in favor of S.C. Johnson and ordered the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to issue a tax credit certificate in the amount of P963,266.00 representing overpaid withholding tax on royalty payments, beginning July, 1992 to May, 1993.2
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue thus filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals which rendered the decision finding no merit in the petition and affirming in toto the CTA ruling.
Thus, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that SC Johnson and Son, USA is entitled to the “Most Favored Nation” Tax rate of 10% on Royalties as provide in the RP-US Tax Treaty in relation to the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty?
Ruling:.
Under Article 24 of the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty, the Philippine tax paid on income from sources within the Philippines is allowed as a credit against German income and corporation tax on the same income. In the case of royalties for which the tax is reduced to 10 or 15 percent according to paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty, the credit shall be 20% of the gross amount of such royalty. To illustrate, the royalty income of a German resident from sources within the Philippines arising from the use of, or the right to use, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, is taxed at 10% of the gross amount of said royalty under certain conditions. The rate of 10% is imposed if credit against the German income and corporation tax on said royalty is allowed in favor of the German resident. That means the rate of 10% is granted to the German taxpayer if he is similarly granted a credit against the income and corporation tax of West Germany. The clear intent of the “matching credit” is to soften the impact of double taxation by different jurisdictions.
The RP-US Tax Treaty contains no similar “matching credit” as that provided under the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty. Hence, the tax on royalties under the RP-US Tax Treaty is not paid under similar circumstances as those obtaining in the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty. Therefore, the “most favored nation” clause in the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty cannot be availed of in interpreting the provisions of the RP-US Tax Treaty.5
The rationale for the most favored nation clause, the concessional tax rate of 10 percent provided for in the RP-Germany Tax Treaty should apply only if the taxes imposed upon royalties in the RP-US Tax Treaty and in the RP-Germany Tax Treaty are paid under similar circumstances. This would mean that private respondent must prove that the RP-US Tax Treaty grants similar tax reliefs to residents of the United States in respect of the taxes imposable upon royalties earned from sources within the Philippines as those allowed to their German counterparts under the RP-Germany Tax Treaty.
The RP-US and the RP-West Germany Tax Treaties do not contain similar provisions on tax crediting. Article 24 of the RP-Germany Tax Treaty expressly allows crediting against German income and corporation tax of 20% of the gross amount of royalties paid under the law of the Philippines. On the other hand, Article 23 of the RP-US Tax Treaty, which is the counterpart provision with respect to relief for double taxation, does not provide for similar crediting of 20% of the gross amount of royalties paid.
Since the RP-US Tax Treaty does not give a matching tax credit of 20 percent for the taxes paid to the Philippines on royalties as allowed under the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty, private respondent cannot be deemed entitled to the 10 percent rate granted under the latter treaty for the reason that there is no payment of taxes on royalties under similar circumstances.
Facts:
On December 28, 2000 The Philippines signed the Rome Statute through Charge d’ Affairs Enrique A. Manalo of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations. Its provisions, however, require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.
The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court which “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern xxx and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions.” Its jurisdiction covers the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression as defined in the Statute
Petioners contend that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate. it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. Petitioner further claims it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties.
A petition for mandamus filed by petitioners to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue :
Whether the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have a ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute.
Ruling :
The court decides in the negative on the issue at hand.
The President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations.[13] In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
While the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations. By requiring the concurrence of the legislature in the treaties entered into by the President, the Constitution ensures a healthy system of checks and balance necessary in the nation’s pursuit of political maturity and growth.
That under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. It is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. The Court, therefore, cannot issue the writ of mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the executive branch of the government to transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to the Senate.
Facts:
The Government of Japan and the Government of the Philippines, through their respective representatives, namely, Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Republic of the Philippines, and then Secretary of Foreign Affairs Domingo L. Siazon, have reached an understanding concerning Japanese loans to be extended to the Philippines. These loans were aimed at promoting our country’s economic stabilization and development efforts.
The assailed resolution recommended the award to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres (Codon)-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road, with the length of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.The DPWH caused the publication of the “Invitation to Prequalify and to Bid” for the implementation of the CP I project, in two leading national newspapers, namely, the Manila Times and Manila Standard on November 22 and 29, and December 5, 2002.
A total of twenty-three (23) foreign and local contractors responded to the invitation by submitting their accomplished prequalification documents on January 23, 2003. In accordance with the established prequalification criteria, eight contractors were evaluated or considered eligible to bid as concurred by the JBIC. Prior to the opening of the respective bid proposals, it was announced that the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) was in the amount of P738,710,563.67.
The bid goes to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation was corrected from the original P993,183,904.98 (with variance of 34.45% from the ABC) to P952,564,821.71 (with variance of 28.95% from the ABC) based on their letter clarification dated April 21, 2004.
The petitioners anchor the instant petition on the contention that the award of the contract to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation violates RA 9184, particularly Section 31 thereof which reads:
SEC. 31. Ceiling for Bid Prices. – The ABC shall be the upper limit or ceiling for the Bid prices. Bid prices that exceed this ceiling shall be disqualified outright from further participating in the bidding. There shall be no lower limit to the amount of the award.
The petitioners insist that Loan Agreement is neither an international nor an executive agreement that would bar the application of RA 9184. They point out that to be considered a treaty, an international or an executive agreement, the parties must be two sovereigns or States whereas in the case of Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, the parties are the Philippine Government and the JBIC, a banking agency of Japan, which has a separate juridical personality from the Japanese Government.
The respondents however contend that foreign loan agreements, including Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, as executive agreements and, as such, should be observed pursuant to the fundamental principle in international law of pacta sunt servanda. The Constitution, the public respondents emphasize, recognizes the enforceability of executive agreements in the same way that it recognizes generally accepted principles of international law as forming part of the law of the land.34 This recognition allegedly buttresses the binding effect of executive agreements to which the Philippine Government is a signatory. It is pointed out by the public respondents that executive agreements are essentially contracts governing the rights and obligations of the parties. A contract, being the law between the parties, must be faithfully adhered to by them. Guided by the fundamental rule of pacta sunt servanda, the Philippine Government bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligations under Loan Agreement.
Issue :
Whether or not the the loan agreement violates RA 9184.
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the respondents.
Significantly, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress. executive agreements, They sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents denominated “agreements” or “protocols”.
The fundamental principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda,73 which is, in fact, embodied in Section 4 of RA 9184 as it provides that “[a]ny treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed,” the DPWH, as the executing agency of the projects financed by Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, rightfully awarded the contract for the implementation of civil works for the CP I project to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation.
Filed under: FORENSICS
The presidential debate has become the most important events in America’s presidential elections. It attracts the biggest audiences of the campaign in which some voters, judging by the comments made on the debate, will draw conclusions about which candidate appears more presidential, more commanding or more comfortable with himself.
This presidential debate has the new rules, the first and last of three presidential debates will be divided into nine-minute segments. The moderators will begin each segment with a question and give the candidates two minutes each to respond. That will be followed by a five-minute “discussion” period. The moderator can ask supplementary questions, or the candidates could question each other. The new format “allows for a much more robust discussion — I don’t say guarantees, but allows for.” In tonight’s debate there will be no opening or closing statements from the candidates.
Presidential Debates tough discussions are expected. Candidates for the seat in White House prepared very much in this debate that they even have coaches though expertise are expected to them. Obama has Michael Sheehan, who makes a living advising corporate officials on how to talk to television cameras. Sheehan has helped numerous Democrats learn appropriate body language and mannerisms for television. McCain has hired Brett O’Donnell, formerly the debate coach at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University.
On the third and final debate I would say that it did meet the academic requirements. As to the basic requirements which are, Claim, Ground and Warrant are expressed in the course of the the dabate. Both parties are more likely having the same claim in the debate but differed in there grounds and claims. Their grounds are very much strengthened with facts especially Obama.
Presentation of facts and the organization of the argument are noticeable which logically complete the case. They made sure that the audience follow through to where the argument is headed. Enumeration of facts and basis is well conveyed thus letting the audience understand how their claims are realized, which essential in an argument. In this aspect the time limit in which one is allowed to speak would also sort the important points that need to be presented.
The Presidential debaters are both government and opposition at the same time. Rebuttals in every issue raised are well presented when first stressing out what issue has been rebutted which would display a clash in the argument. And rebuttals made create new argument that strengthens the claim. And I notice a good practice or tip in the debate is a bit of agreeing the issue rose but presenting the loophole and relaying a strong point, which would clearly weaken the argument of the other house.
The debaters did not also generally dwell on factual basis, they also display conviction through empathy with the American people which actually at some point draw attention to believe in them. They have created characters in the course of the argument not just as hands on example but also would display that they know what and who they are dealing with.
All in all the debate was a healthy duel not just who would be the rightful President but also a rich intellectual entertainment which displays a good picture on how to compose and present your argument in away that the people you are speaking with sees that same picture as you do.
Filed under: FORENSICS
Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument (Wikipedia). It contributes to the intellectual and ethical development of its participants by challenging them to make defensible judgments in which they must critically investigate complex issues, question given assumptions, evaluate the reliability of data and consider alternative perspectives. Debate stimulates and refines communication skills that empower individuals to speak for themselves. (Parliamentary Debate by Robert Branham). Physical and vocal delivery, humor, passion and persuasiveness are important elements debating.
In a formal debating contest, there are rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences on how they will interact. There are numerous form of debate used in competitons, however they all intent to present conflicting arguments which aims and claims to be superior to the other case. Parliamentary debate has long been the predominant form of competitive academic debating.
The speakers for the proposition (sometimes called the government), open and close the debate in defense of the motion. They should establish interest in the motion and case through an introduction which should persuade the judge and audience that the issue is of importance and interest to them. They should also explain why each of these arguments is significant; should offer a complete and compelling case for the motion. The opening speech should be concluded by a restatement or summary of the main points of the case.
The first speaker for the proposition must use some of the preparation time to organize the main issues of the case into a logically complete and persuasive form to convey the best possible impression of their case. The first speaker therefore uses preparation time to arrange the essential elements of the case into a brief outline. The argument outline should clearly bring the major elements of the case into relation with each other and should state and support the main arguments of the case.
The opening speaker establishes the framework for the debate and establishes a logically complete case for the proposition. This involves an expository presentation in which the speaker may define any ambiguous terms of the motion, interpret the motion through a clear case statement.
The case statement should clearly advance a controversial claim, capable of affirmation and denial, susceptible to proof and disproof. The case statement can be based on a narrow construction of the motion or an understanding that is creative, unusual or enterprising. Any narrow construction should have a link to the resolution or serve as an appropriate analogy for the motion. In support of the motion.
The government must, at the beginning of the debate, define the motion and provide a clear and debatable statement of their position. Their duty is to provide the basis for a good debate. The first speaker must accordingly present a case that is highly debatable. This requirement is very different from other forms of competitive debating, in which the affirmative team attempts to secure a strategic advantage by devising a case that is so strong and so obscure that the other side will have nothing of consequence to say against it.
While the first proposition speaker must provide a case against which there are strong and principled arguments, the second proposition speaker is then expected in the next speech to demonstrate that strong opposition arguments do exist, or else lose the decision.
The first proposition speaker supports the motion by advocating something new, challenging established ideas, or attempting to settle an issue in public controversy. It is the obligation of the person who affirms the motion to prove the case. As Raymond Alden explained in his 1900 treatise on The Art of Debate, there is an “obligation resting upon one or other parties to a controversy to establish by proofs a given proposition, before being entitled to receive an answer from the other side.” This responsibility rests, he concluded, “upon the side that would be assumed to be defeated if no progress at all were made in the consideration of the case.” The government’s burden of proof is met through the presentation and support of its major arguments, or case. Each of these points would be supported with reasoning, facts, stories and illustrations.
The duty of the opposition is to provide clash, promoting a choice between the proposal advanced by the proposition team and some other course of action or position. They should make clear why the motion before the house should be defeated. Opposition’s job is made easier by the requirement that the proposition team advance a case that provides strong and principled ground for the opposition. If the proposition team has met its burden, the opposition should be able to discover good arguments on first hearing the case. Opposition speaker may choose to contest the definitions or case statement that the government has established for the debate and may choose to present a countercase.
The first opposition speaker attempts to weaken or nullify the case for the proposition, usually by refuting the main points of the case; pointing out logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the main lines of proof; and identify any of the common errors of case construction that the proposition team has committed, including ignored exceptions to case examples, the improper combination of arguments, and overdrawn conclusions.
The second (also called ‘member”) constructive speeches for each side have similar responsibilities. Their primary duties are extension and amplification–ensuring that all major issues for both sides have been covered and that the important arguments for their side have been expanded with additional support. They should effectively refute the important arguments of the opposing side and amplify the strong arguments initiated by their colleagues. They should concentrate on sustaining the core arguments for their side, should refute all important objections presented by the preceding speaker and provide new examples or other forms of additional support for the main points of the proposition team’s case, they can present additional objections, defend and expand the countercase if one has been presented, and evaluate inconsistencies between the arguments.
The rebuttals are the summary speeches for each side of the debate, the last opportunity each side will have to explain why they should win. Rebuttals are a final opportunity to contrast the major positions and philosophies of the proposition and opposition. They are to deal in depth with those issues that will have a substantial bearing on the decision to uphold or defeat the motion. the rebuttal must have a foundation in the constructive speeches entitled to answer new arguments made and should carry through important issues from the constructive speeches, illustrating the significant dimension of each issue in qualitative or quantitative terms.
Rebuttalists should paint the “big picture” of the round, sorting out the decisive issues from those that are less important and should offer an effective summation of the main issues of the debate, demonstrating how important points for the opposition undermine support for the motion.
Debate does not only serve as an intellectual entertainment or only hones those who are debating but also educated the audience. The debate format helps frame the discussion of current controversies and educates audiences in different ways of approaching social and political concerns. It will promote the desire of those attending it to speak for themselves about the issues raised and often provide an opportunity for floor speeches from the audience.
Filed under: FORENSICS
The 1987 Constitution was adopted after the fall of the corrupt dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. It is meant to prevent any other president from subverting democracy by stealth. Separation of powers has led to dissonance in the Philippine peace process. Government negotiates not as one entity but as three separate centres of power. A legislated national peace policy would help the branches of government to act together. ‘Under a constitutional system, all laws are based on or consistent with the fundamental law which is the Constitution.
Changing the constitution of the Philippines is known in political circles here as charter change or “cha-cha”. There has been numerous attempts to have the 1987 constitution changed. From the reign of Ramos, Estrada to GMA which proposals that included: a shift to a unicameral parliamentary form of government; economic liberalization; further decentralization of national government and more empowerment of local governments via transition to a parliamentary-federal government system.
Advocates of cha-cha say their main aim is to spur the economy by removing constitutional restrictions on foreign investment. Some believe that replacing the presidential system of government with a parliamentary system would reduce endemic official corruption. Others think that a federal system would help quell the Muslim insurgency in the south.
Opponents of cha-cha say the hidden aim is to keep Mrs Arroyo in power after 2010, another Marcos in the making, even though voters would have the final say. The presidential palace denies that it is behind the cha-cha moves and says Mrs Arroyo intends to leave office. But a palace official said it supports changes that would “significantly boost the country’s chances for growth and development”. If ever strong push for revising the Philippine constitution the Supreme Court will have to decide. But even the judges might not end the argument. The president is due next year to appoint replacements for seven of the 15 Supreme Court justices. The opposition is in doubt on the impartiality of anyone she appoints.
I believe we do not need a constitutional change. Our Constitution, I would say well defined and has enough authority to uphold the rule of law. What we need is an attitude change, a culture.Studies show that the ‘rule of law’ is a major factor in the growth and stability of nations. The ability to enforce the law, to keep faith with social contracts and sustain a just system of reward and punishment enables a society to flourish in a secure environment. This capacity for rule-keeping, however, is a matter of culture, those historically learned patterns of behaviour by which we organize our common life. What we now call the ‘rule of law’ is a product of modernization, of centuries of habit and custom in those countries which have gone through the struggle of breaking out of the arbitrary rule of despotic monarchies, of sorting out what to them is right and fair and putting in place mechanisms and institutions to ensure that these are defined with some degree of objectivity and continuity (Melba Padilla Maggay, Ph.D). Let’s take Japan as an example, which for centuries closed its doors to western influence and in the global age, present a competitive and solid face to the world.
Constitutions are normally a formal statement of what exists, a product of a nation’s history and its already existing customs and beliefs. Sometimes, a country’s legal tradition and the norms behind it can be so strong that there is no need for a formal declaration, as in England. In countries like ours, there is a need to We have yet to develop a deep enough respect for rule-keeping, as against the tendency to bend and bow before the powers, values and habits otherwise, it will remain just a piece of paper that can be thrown aside when found to be technically inconvenient by those in power.
Filed under: FORENSICS
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
