Ladies and gentlemen, honorable adjudicators and equally intelligent students of this democratic country, good morning! First, let me address the errors of the affirmative side 1. ____________ 2. ___________Before I proceed with my speech, let me reiterate the arguments of the first speaker; this proposal is a violation of Sec 1 Bill of Rights, it is undemocratic and anti republican, it is violative of vested rights, prejudice to the rights of third person and contravenes Article II Sec 1.

Limiting to only taxpayers the right to vote is not beneficial and not practicable under the following contentions:1. It is contrary to International Law particularly Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.2. It violates the rule of majority in relation to the rights of minority 3. The right to suffrage is a duty and a political right.4. The proposal is circumvention to social justice.5. It would result to amendment of not only a part, but parts of the constitution.

First, the idea of having two classes of persons in a society, as categorized to taxpayer and nontax payer runs counter to public international law. First and foremost, the dichotomy as to who is a taxpayer and a non taxpayer must be delineated. Are non-taxpayers those who are tax exempt due to their income? Or are they persons who evade paying taxes which in itself is a criminal offense? Are these taxpayers only those who pay income tax? Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21, ratified by the Philippines as part of our International Law, states that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives". This prerequisite cannot be clearer of its rejection of the proposal that only taxpayers are allowed to vote. Considering this proposal would make the country an unusual in the world order that acknowledges the dignity of every human being. This is a disturbing conflict with generally, if not universally, peremptory norms or jus cogens. Millions of Filipinos living below the poverty line will lose their right to suffrage.

Second, according to the study conducted by Business World Online, the current population of the Philippines is 102 152 555 but 40.5% of this is considered non-taxpayers for th ey are unemployed or underemployed. Allowing this proposal would mean devaluing the capacity of the poor to express their opinions in political and societal matters. Will we let this be the first step to discriminately classify Filipinos into rich and poor, only? We must remember that the Philippines prioritizes the needs of the marginalized sector, may they be the majority or minority. This motion will only prove that the Philippines is divided. Third, the right to suffrage is a duty and a political right. In the leading case of Ashby vs. White, the right of voting is a thing of the highest importance, and so a great a privilege that it is a great injury to deprive the voter of it. Likewise, Article V Sec 1 states that suffrage may be exercised by ALL CITIZENS of the Philippines. No literacy, property or other substantive requirement shall be imposed. Limiting the said right only to taxpayers is not just a violation of the very essence of suffrage but also a transgression of the fundamental law of the land which is the reflection of the peoples sentiments. Fourth, the proposal would result to amendment of numerous parts of the constitution such as Article 1 Sec 1, Article II Sec 1, Article V Sec 1, and Article XIII Sec 1. This is a clear manifestation that the said measure cannot substantially prosper. It would require too much attention and budget that should rather be allotted to educational systems which the Philippine political system needs.

Lastly, the proposal is a direct circumvention to social justice. Social justice has been long described as a novel concept in Philippine political law, addressing the long-felt discrepancies between the haves and the have-nots. Article XIII Section 1 argues 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." It is an embodiment of the principle that those who have less in life shall have more in law. In a situation of extreme mass poverty, political rights no matter how strongly guaranteed by the Constitution, should never be enjoyed by upper and middle classes only.

Thus, we on the negative side strongly posit NO TO THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE POOR!!!