FIRST SPEAKER - OPPOSITION

LOWERING OF THE AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Ladies and gentlemen, this House believes that the Age of Criminal Responsibility should not
be lowered. Let me emphasize my point in three levels of analysis:
1. The Recognition of the Vital Role of the Children and the Youth in Nation
Building as provided under Section 13, Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution
2. Children are just victims of circumstance and not just of poverty. Hence, here comes
the enactment of the Rep Act 9344 or otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006
3. Our countries adherence to the Generally Accepted Principles of International
Law as to the protection of the welfare and best interest of the child.

Children must be taught how to think and not what to think. They should know at a very young
age what is right or wrong, good or bad since due to advancement, they can be prone to
influence, abuse, and cruelty by the adults around them. That’s why the supreme law of the
land mandates us all to recognize the vital role of the children and the youth in nation building.
In doing so, we must promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and
social well-being. Our government must also give priority to the development of these young
minds, especially those who are living in slums, side streets, and neglected corners of the
society. They should be taught the values of morality and justice. Through this, our future
generations will no longer live in fear for our children will become guardians of peace rather
than promoters of crime and immorality.

As to my second point, children are only victims and should not be treated as criminals. They
are victims of circumstance wherein they have no control in everything around them. To put
them in the hands of the law for the wrong committed does not take into their maturity. They
would not likely pass the competency test to stand trial. Moreover, our criminal justice system
is more on retribution rather than rehabilitation. It does not usually offer an opportunity for
rehabilitation. It simply does not have the capacity to respond to the needs of children,
especially those who are young, in ways that are developmentally appropriate. It does not
always reflect a measure of culpability. Hence, these circumstances compel the Congress to
create a law protecting the welfare and best interest of the child – the RA 9344 otherwise
known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. This law aims to defend the right of
children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all
forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their
development. It increases the age bracket as to when the child would be exempted for the
crime committed or just to mitigate his punishment for such commission. This involves the
determination of whether he acted with discernment or not. Without this law, children would
generally be punished with no chance of reformation.

As to my final point, our country adheres to the generally accepted principles of international
law and it forms part of the law of the land. One of these generally accepted principle is the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Pursuant to Article 40 of such
Convention, he State recognizes the right of every child alleged as, accused of, adjudged, or
recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the
promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, taking into account the child's age and
desirability of promoting his/her reintegration. Whenever appropriate and desirable, the State
shall adopt measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings,
providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected. It shall ensure that
children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being by providing for, among
others, a variety of disposition measures such as care, guidance and supervision orders,
counseling, probation, foster care, education and vocational training programs and other
alternatives to institutional care. In compliance thereto, our country enacted RA 9344.

In conclusion, lowering the age of criminal responsibility would violate not only the
Constitution but also the prevailing laws, international treaties, and customary norms around
the world. It is for the State to uplift the lives of our children and to apply the principles of
restorative justice in all its laws, policies and programs applicable to children in conflict with
the law. Former Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court once wrote that children who
commit heinous crimes are capable of changing. There is a need to protect the general
population against violent actions. We also have a responsibility as a society to give our
children a fighting chance for success.

DIVORCE

Ladies and Gentlemen, this House believes that divorce should not legalized in the
Philippines. The Constitution clearly provides that marriage, as an inviolable social institution,
is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. The Family Code also
provides that its nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to
stipulation except only for marriage settlements within the limits provided for in this Code.
Strictly speaking, the law only provides for the following means for the severance of martial
relationship: annulment of marriage, and petition for legal separation. These means have
several grounds and these grounds should be alleged and proven in court.

Philippines is the only country in the world, aside from the Vatican city, where divorce is not
yet legal. This form of remedy for a strained marital relationship could hardly be recognized in
our jurisdiction due to the fact that majority of the Filipino people are Catholics and somehow,
the Philippine Constitution was crafted to respect the view of the Church that marriage is a
sacred vow and therefore, it should be treated as an institution in which the state is duty-
bound to protect. If we will legalized divorce, it will shaken the very foundation of the society
which is the family. It could be pro-women who were subjected to abuse by their husbands
but never a pro-family wherein it affects the development of its individual members. It should
be taken into consideration the possibility that divorce, while it may indeed provide quick legal
remedies for some seemingly failed marriages, might end up destroying even those
marriages that could be saved by dialogues or the intervention of family, friends, counselors,
and pastor.

We also have to consider at this point that marriage is not just a normal contract but a special
contract. Its consequences, such as an irremediable marital ties or strained marital
relationships, should not be governed by stipulations or formal agreements between the
spouses. The severance should be done in accordance with law and based on the grounds
provided for. Instead of legalizing divorce, we should add more grounds on the annulment of
marriage and petition for legal separation. This is due to the possibility that in divorce, we
cannot prevent collusion wherein the spouses enter into an agreement secretly to obtain a
divorce decree. This is a form of fraud and it is against the law.

Lastly, divorce might be an easy process but this is expensive because you have to cover the
legal fees and other expenses that come along with getting a divorce decree. It can also get
you exhausted and can take a heavy toll on you a single person. It can reduce your living
standards because now, only one person will be earning and you will have to remain on a
budget. And finally, it can also lead to a change in personal relationships as some friends can
pick sides and you may also want to stay away from your married friends.

In conclusion, ending your marriage is never an easy option nor is living apart. It is important
to remember that if love is still there, then you may choose to reconcile one day which is
possible with separation and not a divorce. However, with a divorce, you can always remarry
but you have to take into consideration the circumstances that could affect you as a person,
your relationship with your children and peers, your work, and the people around you.
DEATH PENALTY

The death penalty is not about whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The
real question of capital punishment in this country is, Do we deserve to kill?”

Ladies and Gentlemen, this House believes that death penalty should not be imposed.
Section 1 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law. The death penalty violates the most
fundamental human right – the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhumane and degrading
punishment. It is discriminatory. It is frequently used against the most vulnerable in society,
including the poor, ethnic and religious minorities, and people with mental disabilities. Some
governments use it to silence their opponents. Where justice systems are flawed and unfair
trials rife, the risk of executing an innocent person is ever present. When the death penalty is
carried out, it is final. Mistakes that are made cannot be unmade. An innocent person may be
released from prison for a crime they did not commit, but an execution can never be reversed.

The question is, don’t victims of violent crime and their families have a right to justice? They
do. Those who have lost loved ones in terrible crimes have a right to see the person
responsible held to account in a fair trial without recourse to the death penalty. In opposing
the death penalty, we are not trying to minimize or condone crime. But as many families who
have lost loved ones have said, the death penalty cannot genuinely relieve their suffering. It
just extends that suffering to the family of the condemned person. Take it from the testimony
of a woman whose mother-in-law was murdered in 1972 that Revenge is not the answer.
The answer lies in reducing violence, not causing more death.

Executing someone because they’ve taken someone’s life is revenge, not justice. An
execution – or the threat of one –inflicts terrible physical and psychological cruelty. Any
society which executes offenders is committing the same violence it condemns.

The 2nd Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights abolished the
imposition of Death Penalty. When the Philippines became a party to this Convention, the
imposition of Death penalty was prohibited. Those who were sentenced with the capital
punishment were reduced to life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua. If the government
would insist in imposing death penalty, it would be contrary to the international law and
problems might arise with regards to our relationship with other state parties.

On the other hand, Death penalty is not even an effective tool in crime prevention according
to research. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively
than a prison term. In fact, crime figures from countries which have banned the death penalty
have not risen. In some cases they have actually gone down. In Canada, the murder rate in
2008 was less than half that in 1976 when the death penalty was abolished there.

In relation to terrorism which is inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country
and welfare of the people, Governments often resort to the death penalty in the aftermath of
violent attacks, to demonstrate they are doing something to “protect” national security. But the
threat of execution is unlikely to stop men and women prepared to die for their beliefs – for
example, suicide bombers. Executions are just as likely to create martyrs whose memory
becomes a rallying point for their organizations. People accused of “terrorism” are especially
likely to be sentenced to death after unfair trials. Many are condemned on the basis of
“confessions” extracted through torture. In some cases, special or military courts set up
through counter-terrorism laws have sentenced civilians to death, undermining international
standards.

Here comes a question on whether or not it is better to execute someone than to lock him up
in jail forever. Our criminal justice system should be more on reformation than retribution.
Every day, men, women, even children, await execution on death row. Whatever their crime,
whether they are guilty or innocent, their lives are claimed by a system of justice that values
retribution over rehabilitation. As long as a prisoner remains alive, he or she can hope for
rehabilitation, or to be exonerated if they are later found to be innocent.

In death penalty, any form of execution is inhumane. The lethal injection is often touted as
somehow more humane because, on the surface at least, it appears less grotesque and
barbaric than other forms of execution such as beheading, electrocution, gassing and
hanging. But the search for a “humane” way to kill people should be seen for what it really is –
an attempt to make executions more palatable to the public in whose name they are being
carried out, and to make the governments that execute appear less like killers themselves.

In conclusion, strong public support for the death penalty often goes hand in hand with a lack
of reliable information about it – most often the mistaken belief that it will reduce crime. Many
governments are quick to promote this erroneous belief even though there is no evidence to
support it. Crucial factors that underlie how the death penalty is applied are often not
understood. These include the risk of executing an innocent person, the unfairness of trials,
and the discriminatory nature of the death penalty – all of which contribute to a fully informed
view of capital punishment.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam nor Eve and Eve. God created the animals of
opposite sex so that they could bond with each other and multiply.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this House believes that same sex marriage should not be legalized
in our country for five main reasons:
 The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and
a woman.
 Marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-sex couples because
they cannot produce children together.
 Children need both a mother and a father.
  Allowing gay couples to wed could further weaken the institution of marriage.
 Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

As to the first point, the institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between
a man and a woman. Looking back at the past, it was never told nor portrayed that there was
“harana” and “pamamanhikan” between two lovers of the same sex. It’s always between a
man and a woman. This traditional way of courting is written in books and scriptures and
formed part of our culture. Hence, marriage has long been a social institution defined by
relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in
millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been
adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.

The Family Code of the Philippines which governs family relations defines marriage as a
special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance
with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. Moreover, the Code also provides
that no marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present: (1) Legal
capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and (2) Consent freely
given in the presence of the solemnizing officer. To allow same sex marriage as a civil union
would fall short on the first requisite which is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who
must be a male and a female. The law uses the word must in which under statutory
construction could generally mean as mandatory than discretionary.

As to the second point, marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-sex
couples because they cannot produce children together. This presupposes that the primary
objective of marriage is for the establishment of a conjugal and family life. In a family, there is
the father, the mother, and their children. These children are the fruits of their union.
Scientifically speaking, same sex couple could hardly produce children of their own. They
would likely resort to adoption. Since they cannot procreate, there is no marriage to speak
about.

With respect to my third point, children need both a mother and a father. Studies show that
girls raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity and
teenage pregnancy. In addition, children without a mother are deprived of the emotional
security and unique advice that mothers provide. Children raised by parents who had same-
sex relationships suffered more difficulties in life than children raised by “intact biological
families.” Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a
father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of
either a mother or a father.

As to my fourth point, allowing gay couples to wed could further weaken the institution of
marriage. This is because to allow same sex marriages would draw confusion to future
generation as to the essence of marriage as an institution. This would further undermine an
institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society. In recent decades,
marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than
children’s needs... Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is the culmination of
this revisionism, and it would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage
apart from other bonds.
Lastly, marriage is a privilege and not a right. The Constitution contains no provision on the
restriction on marriage as only between man and woman. However, civil rights contained
under the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution do not include the right to marry. The civil
rights are as follows:
 Freedom of Speech
 Right to a free press
 Freedom of Assembly
 The right of petition
 Freedom to Form Associations
 Right to privacy
 Freedom of Religion
 Liberty of Abode
 Right to Travel
 Right of access to information
Even if marriage is not a right, it can be a privilege to anyone regardless of sex. It may not
be enforceable but it can still be subject to the state’s regulations.

REQUIRING A COLLEGE DEGREE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Ladies and Gentlemen, this House believes that a college degree should not be required as
part of the qualifications for members of Congress. The minimum requirements in order to
qualify as a member of Congress are provided under Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which
provides:

SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the

Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to
read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than
two years immediately preceding the day of the election.

SECTION 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a

natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-
five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a
registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a
period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.

It is none other than the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which provides that one of
the qualifications to be a member of Congress is to be able to read and write. Remember that
the Constitution was the fruit of being a democratic country where people could participate in
policy-making through a person who will represent them. If we will require that a member of
Congress should be a college-degree holder, will it impair the real essence of democracy?

The answer is in affirmative. Philippines adopt the most common form of democracy - the
representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions,
formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such
officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that
requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of
private citizens.

In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people,
and for the people."

Former Chief Justice Davide said that it would be undemocratic to ask elective public officials
for qualifications higher than being able to read and write. Being one of the framers of the
1987 Constitution, he said that there have been proposals to include educational
qualifications in both the 1971 and 1987 charters, but they were turned down because "public
service must be open to all.” Illiteracy is not really the fault of the one who’s illiterate. It could
even be the fault of the government by not providing enough educational facilities.