7/23/2019 Semi Finals First Speaker

1/2

Let it be resolved that THE CONSTITUTION BE AMENDED TO THE EXTENT THATONLY TAXPAYERS CAN VOTEFIRST NEGATIVE SPEAKER

Dear adjudicators, co-debaters, professors, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Letme first address some points for rebuttal:___________________________________The negative side will prove in this debate that the proposal amending the constitutionto the extent that onl taxpaers can vote is not practicable, not beneficial and definitelnot necessar.

!uch proposal of the affirmative is undemocratic and anti-"epublican. #rticle $$, !ection% of the %&'( )hilippine *onstitution states that +The )hilippines is a republican state.!overeignt resides in the people and all government authorit emanates from them. $tis a state mandated b the people, the ver definition of +democratic. $t is a statewherein people elect their representatives, thus, it is republican. To limit therepresentation of the people, such right presented through voting, would devalue+democrac itselfcreating indifference between the rich and the poor. The educatedand not. The earners and the non-earners. # marginalied sstem, /our 0onors, whichwill defeat the outstanding feature of the %&'( *onstitution: the expansion of thepeople1s greater power to exercise their sovereignt as highlighted in !ection 2 #rticle%2 of the present charter.

!econd point, /our 0onors. $t is in violation of !ec %, 3ill of "ights, depriving them ofsuch choice of who will govern them. $t does not mean that ou are not a taxpaer doesmean that ou won1t be a recipient of government service. The proposition sas that ifou are not a taxpaer, ou are not entitled to vote, thus, ou would not be called alegitimate citien of the "epublic. Let me iterate that the 45ual )rotection *lauseenunciated that all persons subject to legislation should be treated ali6e, as enunciatedin the leading case of 7uinto vs. *894L4*: +e ma not stri6e down a law merelbecause the legislative aim would have been more full achieved b expanding theclass.

Third point, the proposal is violative of the vested rights from #rticle ; !ection % of ourpresent charter that suffrage ma be exercised b +all citiens of the )hilippines.

7/23/2019 Semi Finals First Speaker

2/2

Let it be resolved that THE CONSTITUTION BE AMENDED TO THE EXTENT THATONLY TAXPAYERS CAN VOTEFIRST NEGATIVE SPEAKER

e5ual opportunit for all, rich and poor ali6e, and that accordingl, no person shall bedenied b reason of povert.

hat is prohibited b the *onstitution is the imposition of substantive re5uirementsimilar in nature to literac, or ownership of propert, as cited in the case of *enia vs.

*894L4*, would violate this constitutional provision.

>ifth, it is violative of the valid classification, as enunciated in )eople of the )h vs *aat,for itto be valid, there are four re5uisites that must be met.

%. $s there substantial distinction@