Let it be resolved that THE CONSTITUTION BE AMENDED TO THE EXTENT THAT

ONLY TAXPAYERS CAN VOTEFIRST NEGATIVE SPEAKER

Dear adjudicators, co-debaters, professors, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Let
me first address some points for rebuttal:___________________________________
The negative side will prove in this debate that the proposal amending the constitution
to the extent that only taxpayers can vote is not practicable, not beneficial and definitely
not necessary.
Such proposal of the affirmative is undemocratic and anti-Republican. Article II, Section
1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that The Philippines is a republican state.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. It
is a state mandated by the people, the very definition of democratic. It is a state
wherein people elect their representatives, thus, it is republican. To limit the
representation of the people, such right presented through voting, would devalue
democracy itselfcreating indifference between the rich and the poor. The educated
and not. The earners and the non-earners. A marginalized system, Your Honors, which
will defeat the outstanding feature of the 1987 Constitution: the expansion of the
peoples greater power to exercise their sovereignty as highlighted in Section 2 Article
12 of the present charter.
Second point, Your Honors. It is in violation of Sec 1, Bill of Rights, depriving them of
such choice of who will govern them. It does not mean that you are not a taxpayer does
mean that you wont be a recipient of government service. The proposition says that if
you are not a taxpayer, you are not entitled to vote, thus, you would not be called a
legitimate citizen of the Republic. Let me iterate that the Equal Protection Clause
enunciated that all persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, as enunciated
in the leading case of Quinto vs. COMELEC: We may not strike down a law merely
because the legislative aim would have been more fully achieved by expanding the
class.
Third point, the proposal is violative of the vested rights from Article 5 Section 1 of our
present charter that suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines. No
literacy, property or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage. If there would be regulation by the legislature, it must ONLY be in accordance
with the terms of the Constitution. Clearly, the proposal of the affirmative directly violates
such law disregarding the fact that suffrage is both a statutory and constitutional right.
Expressio unius est exclusion alterius, the list of qualifications merits no further
inclusion. Not only it violates our right to suffrage, but also Article 6 in the Civil Code,
that rights may be waived unless the waiver is prejudicial to the rights of a third person
with a right recognized by law.
Fourth, it is a generally accepted rule that a constitutional enumeration of the classes of
citizens who shall enjoy suffrage is final and exclusive of all other classes. Under
present Philippine constitutional doctrine on republicanism and social justice, any
property qualification for the exercise of civil or political rights would be unconstitutional.
Property qualifications are inconsistent with the nature and essence of the Republican
system. In the tenet that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them, implies necessarily that the right to vote shall not be dependent
upon the wealth of the individual concerned. The principle of social justice presupposes

Let it be resolved that THE CONSTITUTION BE AMENDED TO THE EXTENT THAT

ONLY TAXPAYERS CAN VOTEFIRST NEGATIVE SPEAKER
equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike, and that accordingly, no person shall be
denied by reason of poverty.
What is prohibited by the Constitution is the imposition of substantive requirement
similar in nature to literacy, or ownership of property, as cited in the case of Ceniza vs.
COMELEC, would violate this constitutional provision.
Fifth, it is violative of the valid classification, as enunciated in People of the Ph vs Cayat,
for it to be valid, there are four requisites that must be met.
1. Is there substantial distinction?
No, there is none because it is not iterated by the affirmative which tax must be
paid. Who are the taxpayers, anyway? Everybody pays taxes, correct? E-vat, income
tax, even in the littlest of necessities there are taxes paid.
2. Is it germane to the purpose of the law?
No, because we just stated that it violates not only one but several provisions of
the fundamental law.
3. Is it not limited to existing conditions?
No, because it does not mean that there is a clamor from the public, we should
enact laws.
4. Does it apply equally to all members of the same class?
Precisely, no, because the proposal itself is discriminatory, of who can pay the
taxes and not. If the constitution will be amended that only taxpayers can vote, then
there is no valid classification. The Equal Protection Clause should apply in this case.
Let me reiterate our stand, Your Honors, amending the constitution to the extent that
only taxpayers can vote is not practicable, not beneficial and definitely not necessary.