THIRD NEGATIVE SPEAKER

Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat. It is the duty of the one who alleges to prove what he says, not of the one who denies it.

Your Excellencies, fellow students, ladies and gentlemen, Good Morning!

It is a general fair play in a debate that the burden of proof always remains on the affirmative side. Thus, the affirmative side must establish concrete, clear and convincing pieces of evidence in order to win the case. Your Honors, in this humble debate the affirmative failed to do so, for it is the negative which clearly and substantially accomplished its duty.

Ladies and gentlemen, it may seem that the affirmative provides arguments which appear to be true but upon examination, the negative proved that those arguments are false, hence committed informal fallacies. Let the negative address these errors committed by the affirmative. First.

Allow the negative side to reiterate its points

1st , Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that Philippines is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Your Honors, it is clear that the proposal of the affirmative is undemocratic and anti-Republican.

2nd , the proposal of the affirmative violates Article III Section 1 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law. The Equal Protection Clause means that all persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, as enunciated in the leading case of Quinto vs. COMELEC.

3rd, affirmatives proposal is violative of the valid classification, as enunciated in People of the Philippines vs Cayat, for the fact that the four requisites of valid classification are not met. Thus, the equal protection clause shall apply.

4th , it is contrary to Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Hence, the Philippines must act in accordance with this provision following the Doctrine of Pacta sunt servanda or agreement must be kept.

5th , the proposal of the affirmative violates the rule of majority in relation to the rights of minority. 6th , the leading case of Ashby vs. White which provides that the right of voting is a thing of the highest importance that it is a great injury to deprive the voter of it and Article V Section 1 of the Constitution are clear manifestation that the right to suffrage is a duty and a political right.

Last, Article 13 Section 1 of the Constitution states that the Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people... and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. Thus, the proposal of the affirmative is circumvention to social justice.

Your Honors, ladies and gentlemen, why do we need to amend the Constitution to the extent that only taxpayers can vote if in the first place it violates the very essence of democracy and republicanism of the Philippines? Where is the equal protection of the law in such proposal? The negative side provided substantial statement of facts supporting the truth that the proposal of the affirmative is not necessary, not beneficial and not practicable.We, standing at the negative side strongly submit, Let us not desecrate the Constitution, Let us not allow that only taxpayers can vote.