ANC Square Off: The Firm Debates | University of Santo Tomas v. Cor Jesu College | Sept. 23, 2018

ANC Square Off: The Firm Debates | University of Santo Tomas v. Cor Jesu College | Sept. 23, 2018

critics say president there that may have violated the anti wiretapping law if it's proven that he received copies of conversations between political opponents allegedly planning to ask him from foreign sources but this isn't the first time the president has been tagged in a wiretapping issue last year president Luther himself admitted to ordering the wiretapping of alleged narco politicians the difference between them and now is that this time around the information is said to be from a foreign country which could mean a breach of national security so tonight we take this issue head-on hello I'm Mikey errata and you're watching square-off season 16 the ferme debates [Applause] it might be loose conspiracy but they are into it somebody by Philippine the much-anticipated data set on September 11 left more questions than answers and in some ways it may have even opened up a can of worms for the commander in chief the conversation provided by a foreign country sympathetic toward I ask that it be declassified so they were in constant communication for an intel on an alleged austere plot by two unexpected allies communist guerrillas and the group of former rebel soldiers the Magdala group law experts and critics wasted no time to call the president's attention to the legal implications of what he had shared wiretapping and security breach issues were quickly raised any violation of a law by a president is a violation of constitutional violation shock / dynamic modulus on the luhan volume model and porosity in 11 in Lima upper Filipino I suspect it's China which either China Russia this is a clear security breach in our country she published Formica announce the foreign country intercepting the communications within the read read in the country a ban on the local government communications with a polyethylene and a foreign country this lucky if he survives politically 2018 and he will be luckier if he were if if you would survive politically at the middle of in the middle of next year malecon young however has remained firm that there is nothing wrong with sharing Intel gathering of Intel has always been recognized as a function of diplomatic missions we have been beneficiaries of shared information from the United States about terrorist groups so is the president's receipt of Intel on Filipinos especially on his critics from foreign sources an impeachable offense arguing for the affirmative side is the University of Santo Tomas driven by truth in charity the contenders from the Royal and Pontifical University of Santo Tomas I'm a certified public accountant and I've been debating since high school I took up law because I really enjoyed my time as a debater the best part of law school is reading about arguments that are carefully crafted by our intelligent minds in the Supreme Court I'm an economist and I've been debating since undergrad and I plan to continue debating after law school I took a block because I found it interesting the best part of law school for me it's learning about the law itself and talking and having a discourse between the teacher just do them I'm a teacher after law school I do plan to go back to teaching at the COFF law because I felt like I needed to be more assertive for me the best part of law school is understanding the law and actually having the ability to help others because some people don't have the ability to defend themselves you have to do it for them and that is what quantifies as the best experience in law so for me team University of Santo Tomas committed passionate competent and taking on the negative side is core hey sue college all the way from the Gate City of the South geegaws Davao del Sur the next generation lawyers from poor hasu college ironically I am sometimes introverted I only keep to myself and the bay thing has helped me a lot in expressing my thoughts and my I took up law primarily because there are no lawyers in our family and I believe that knowledge is power and I would like I would want to know all my rights in case I am faced with abuse or prejudice I'm very funny I'm very bubbly and I just love making people laugh I took up law because I believed that one day I could be a big help for other people those people that don't have the power to speak for themselves but those people that are marginalized and under underprivileged I'm a really strong a tough person but I really love and appreciate the little moments and the precious things in life I took up law because if it's not just a childhood dream but I read it is appalling and God really placed me here and he prepared me for this journey team core hasu College dedicated passionate determined let's now meet our distinguished judges first off we have attorney Karla Regina Valera Chua senior associate at the VNA law firm next we have attorney Rene Gomez Philippine junior he's a professor at the delassalle University College of Law and presiding as our chief adjudicator we have judge Maximo and Chet a junior executive drudge at the regional trial court branch 66 in Bellaire arora we're using a modified organics fir'd format the debate is between two sides the affirmative and the negative with three members each each debater from the affirmative side argues the necessity benefic ality and practicability of the proposition while the counterpart debaters on the negative side oppose these arguments each debater is given four minutes to deliver a constructive speech and rebut the previous argument each debater is given two minutes to interpolate or cross-examine the opposing debater only categorical questions may be asked each of the judges may ask one question of each speaker within that speakers time limit the judges score each team in terms of manner matter and interpolation the team with a higher score from each judge gets a point the team with the most number of points wins the debate the chief adjudicator rules in the event of Ty's objections or contest stations this week's proposition let it be resolved that president rodrigo the third is receipt of intelligence information on Filipinos from foreign sources is an impeachable offense first stop for the affirmative side we have Rika Rika you have four minutes to tell us why we must consider president to theaters acceptance of foreign Intel as an impeachable offense your honors when president Duterte ascended to foreign surveillance of Filipino citizens and use that information to suppress dissent he defied his sworn duty of preserving the constitution and faithfully executing the nation's laws thereby committing the impeachable offenses of culpable violation of the Constitution and or betrayal of public trust in establishing a culpable violation of the Constitution we must consider not just the receipt per se but the matter of such regime in a conference last September 11 the president after admitting that everything is stopped expressed his assent to such foreign surveillance by referring to his source as a country sympathetic to us by requesting that the same information the private communications under his possession be declassified and disclosing some of its contents to the public in doing so he disregarded two fundamental constitutional provisions first is section 3 of the Bill of Rights protecting the right to privacy in communication and correspondence second is section 17 article 7 mandating the president to preserve the Constitution and faithfully execute the nation's laws this is in relation to the anti wiretapping Act which punishes not only reactive wiretapping but also the acts of permitting the same processing a copy of the private communications and is closing the same to the public these acts are not just similar violations of the Constitution but are culpable ones which according to father walk in Verna's one of the framers of the Constitution implied deliberate intent as a lawyer and as a public official with an army of legal counsels at his disposal he is fully aware of his duty to protect the right to privacy despite this knowledge the president has repeatedly abused this power in order to suppress dissent in March 2017 he claimed to use intelligence information to discredit senator Dodd even now he is using the same information to threaten military officials he claims to be conniving with a Magdala group it is also for this reason that regardless of the legality of his acts they nonetheless constitute a betrayal of public trust which as defined by the Supreme Court in Gonzales the third versus office of the President includes tyrannical abuse of power his receipt of information has been made with a view of suppressing dissent in an age where dissent is of utmost importance in this year of post truth and strongman politics democracy's last hope is people speaking truth to power silencing these people through unlawfully seized seize data is a grave assault odom democracy and must be declared an impeachable offense while there are justified limitations to the right to privacy this can only be done upon a court order or a provision of law and in any case it must be justified by a national security threat in this case even presidential spokesman Harry raka conceded yesterday that there is no reason for the public to be alarmed because the threat is nothing that the state cannot handle for this reason there is no reason why president dr. day could have been justified in limiting our sovereignty and allowing foreign powers to violate the right to privacy those those limitations are only within the powers of the President and our open government for all these reasons we submit that because of a culpable violation of the Constitution and the betrayal public trust his acts should be considered an impeachable offense thank you two minutes for the cross-examination good evening Council my categorical questions are answerable by a yes or no now am I correct in saying that it is your contention that the receipt of President dr. Aafia foreign intelligence information is an impeachable offense yes now are you familiar with article 11 section 2 of the 1987 Constitution impeachable of the list of MPs Thank You counsel and would you agree with me that these impeachable offenses are enumerated therein or exclusive am i right now would you mean that the receipt of President attacked a foreign intelligence information would acquit would equate to treason no that's your bribery counsel how about bribery on the ground sweet eruption Council that's not response so you are merely imputing that it is a culpable violation of the Constitution in betrayal public lands now on to my next question now were you saying also that the right to privacy of communication is violated because conversations are subjected to surveillance counsel yes cons now what do you mean what would you know what intelligence information would mean these are private communication now to enlighten you counsel these are secret military informations necessary for military or operations and this does not include private and personal matters now so would you look there these are fees respect my time this is my time Council now are you aware that the right to privacy is not absolute it's not yes and it admits of certain exemptions which is the by lawful order of the court or when public order yes there's no more time near yes or no now would you agree with me that public order and public safety are matters of national security this Thank You counsel now are you aware that the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that national security prevails over an individual yes but if there's thank you for you are now citing with us thank you for changing your position so are you still saying that national security is birthed and protecting the state is a violation of the Constitution Council no but there's no nothing it's also Thank You counsel now is protecting the nation and impeachable offense counsel yes but it's not applicable so you are engaging in a fallacy it is not an impeachable offense that will be all Robby you now have four minutes to rebut Rika and advance your argument on why president de terras acceptance of foreign Intel is not an impeachable offense culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trusts are serious accusations ladies and gentlemen and hence must not be based on speculations and unfounded assumptions ladies and gentlemen your honors good evening before I proceed let me what certain points raised by the affirmative they contend that there is a violation of the right to privacy but we say otherwise intelligence sharing with foreign nations is not a new concept of the Philippines as this is necessarily a part of our diplomatic relations and this is in keeping with our constitutional mandate to maintain cooperation and Amity with all nations we have signed into agreements like the 2017 Philippine Russia facts wherein in part we agreed for information intelligence sharing to protect our common security concerns we also have entered into agreements like Attica and we have also executive order number 69 series of 2002 which provides that national intelligence information should work with their foreign counterparts intelligence security organization now on to my constructive team Coria sue submits that the receipt of President apparently of foreign intelligence information is not an impeachable offense because no privacy rights have been violated by the president this to say that the president has received received foreign intelligence information does not necessarily mean that phone conversations have been tapped or computers have been hacked or all conversations have been listened into this simply is a presumption which cannot yield in to an impeachable offense as investigated in the case of Gutierrez versus House of Representatives a recital of facts must be necessary to establish to constitute an impeachable offense also that is bear in mind yes your honors counsel what if the information was obtained from or was obtained from wiretap conversations what would the oil even position be we would like to upheld the privacy rights of individuals but on matters of national security your honors this take precedence and primacy over an individual's claim of the right to privacy thank you your honor now to continue please let us bear in mind here that military intelligence intelligence here means secret military informations and not too personal and private matters hence private citizens who do not have any involvement in terrorism rebellion or coup d'etat does not have to be anxious because their rights will not be violated but assuming without contending that certain privacy rights will be stepped on this will be justified and done in good faith therefore not a culpable violation of the constitution article 11 section 2 the 1987 Constitution enumerates offenses and limits this to six and these are culpable violation yes your honor are you saying that if the manner of acquiring it is intentional there is good back there yes your honors still because this is in keeping with our duty our external duty like for example our signatories to the Philippines Russia packs we're in in part ways agreed to engage in foreign intelligence information sharing thank you your honors now on to proceed culpable violation pertains to a willful violation of the Constitution and not to violations unintentionally or involuntarily committed in good faith or through an honest mistake of judgment a claim of a violation of the right to privacy does not equate to such offence especially so when the right to privacy becomes inferior to concerns of national security as stated in the case of Chavez versus Gonzalez likewise in the case of Sara I know verses committee and trade related matters in 2016 the Supreme Court pronounced that the constitutional guarantee of the people's right to privacy two minutes for the cross-examination Council section 3 of the Bill of Rights provides that the right to privacy in communication and responses shall be inviolable except with a court order or a provision of law is there a court order in the scheme sound so you are misleading system aid counselors in this a master of public or noxious I am sole any counsel that is their court order in this case allowing the third section is like the public order of public scene where under what suppose that is a no is there's a legal provision allowing the director to receive information against Juliana's yes counsel because we have entered into agreement specifically in that respect in 2007 formation to suppress dissent no that is not no ration sauce in this case in any case even if there was a court order or a legal provision it must be justified by a concern on public safety since 2016 there has been eight claims by the 30 that there are plans to escape counsel we said to the parade offices my dream ask questions have we seen any of those claims today's Council of the President salarino has an area of those claims actually no doctor they still in power in OH&S Island to ask him that their evidence has truly honest truth or talking NPA in their plot of this table where they're over taps yessir darkness trice also very also forms are for their also threats to the life of souls and a basically your concoction system revelation no none of these claims were actualized in the final analysis there is a good they make you read to the life of the unfinished asking questions thank you let's now hear from the second affirmative speaker Jian you've got four minutes to tell us why it would be beneficial to deem president into theatres use of foreign intel on Filipinos as an impeachable offense the fate of every democracy is based upon the rights and sovereignty of a state good evening your honors for a beneficial T we would like to invite your attention to two points first the proposition sets a good precedent insofar as constitutional rights are concerned and second the proposition condemns any form of unlawful foreign surveillance within the corners of our territory on my first point the fundamental rights found in the Constitution primordially considers the Liberty and democracy that every Filipino should possess your honors allowing President Emeritus receipt or foreign information to be an impeachable offense upholds the value that the Constitution places upon the right to privacy as an essential right of the Filipinos this value is clearly shown yes your honor in this receipt of intelligent information be equated to an active surveillance or request by the president of this disinformation yes your honor and even if it is not enacted receipt on the part of the president the fact that he did not do anything or there's an action on his part it is a violet of our Constitution is it directly violation of his duty as the president of our country or your honor proceeding your honor thank you the playwright may only be limited through stringent methods such as a court order or passing a legislation in the case of Ramirez versus Court of Appeals it was recognized that the pleasures of life are found in the unaudited and free exchange of communication between individuals free from every unjustifiable intrusion since the right to privacy in the right to freedom of expression go hand-in-hand it is right to make any person or the president in this matter accountable for any violation there too otherwise it will cause a chilling effect the Filipino people will fear expressing political dissent knowing that any form of unlawful foreign surveillance is just right at the corner the fragment Harry Rocca conceded that surveillance on ordinary citizen is inevitable because of technological advancements only means one thing chances are high that the fear among the citizens will be instilled and we do not want this to happen on the contrary your honors it is beneficial if establish the president's action as an impeachable offense because then we affirm the long-standing principle that no one is above the law in effect the citizens are comforted by the fact that despite the current political climate constitutional rights are still respected on my second point in McCarran versus Bora on the basis of article 2 section 1 of the Constitution it was held that through our sovereignty our citizenry has been given the supreme guarantee of a democratic way of life there is C the one lawful foreign surveillance is tantamount to subjecting our citizens to the control of another state as well as demonstrating how vulnerable our country security is if we treat yes your honor are you saying that right to perp to privacy about individual is how you're done director self-preservation of a state no your honor what we are forwarding to you today is the fact that there is no national security it is all in the it is a presumptive list of national security that exists in the frame of the mind of the president your honor if you cheat the receiver when law if you treat this as an impeachable offense then really a straight Albert's sovereignty and uphold the rule of law this is demonstrated by the fact that our Constitution is replete with provisions ultimately frowning on too much for intervention as demonstrated by section 81 of the Omnibus election code and their immigration rule against sister Fox in our side your honors we protect national security in a bigger picture because the information gathered from private communications cannot be unnecessarily exploited and unduly disclosed in the guise of a concocted threat against national security thank you two minutes for the cross-examination good evening Council good evening is it safe to assume that you're well versed with the Constitution yes but you're seeing that there is betrayal of public trust as there could be breach of security correct yes are you aware that betrayal of public trust involves bad faith yes yes so you have read the case of Gonzalez versus at the office of the president yes yes okay then you know that the Supreme Court has ruled that bad faith is an indispensable element for the government for an actor to constitute betrayal of public trust and so the fact that the president did nothing introduced yes or no answer counsel is it yes or no the fact that the poll had nothing and actually receiving this information okay are you aware of existing and continuing threats to the president not if not on the part that it is it can be equitable to a detriment is a public knowledge turns out okay bloods to overthrow the government or an act of terrorism is it not no it is not an act of terrorism and attacked the planets not students my time council is a glad faith then for the chief executive to defend the office and the people no okay thank you thank you for siding no she should apprise the president safeguard himself from distracts the president and the political dissent sound so does not equate to a detriment to national security as in the case at hand counsel so you're saying that the president should succumb to these straps and that we as the public we are a democracy Council the fact that there is political establish a national precedent to protect his person and his office is in bad faith okay thank you therefore we must protect the president at all costs not at all cost Council because in the case at hand the political dissent is not you know if there are threats to the president okay Paula you have four minutes now to rebut GN and to advance your argument on why it would not be beneficial to deem president to theaters use of foreign intel on Filipinos as an impeachable offense there is a real and continuing threat and the life of the president and preventing the same from happening is not and should never be ground for impeachment ladies and gentlemen your honors good evening some point of rebuttals before I proceed with my constructive the affirmative argues that there is a betrayal of public trust we see no receiving foreign intelligence information does not constitute betrayal of public trust as provided in the record of the Constitution Commission of 1986 betrayal of public trust is that which violates public interests and excusable neglect of duty they also are contending that there is no call and that there is a culpable violation of the Constitution we say no your honors because culpable violation of the Constitution implies a deliberate intent and such degree of perversity as would transgress the very foundations of democracy as the second speaker of the negative sight I will prove that one there is no betrayal of public trust because there is no bad faith to the president may receive foreign Intel information on the strength of his residual power on the first level of analysis your honors we say that the president's acts of receiving Intel informations on Filipinos from foreign sources is not tantamount to a betrayal of public trust your honors in the case of Gonzales the third versus office of the President of the Philippines the supreme court defined betrayal of public trust as acts that may be less than criminal but must be attended by bad faith and of such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds of impeachment furthermore the Supreme Court in the impeachment case of Chief Justice Corona emphasized bad faith as the main determinant of betrayal of public trust this is clearly yes your honor counsel the topic pertains to information about an oyster now an Ulster is a general term that can be motivated by by by bad faith or by buying my grounds on good faith what is your team's reaction to the fact that they need information the first one out there is not necessarily an assassination of the president we go back to the fact we go back to the facts of this case that whether or not the action of the ouster is in bad faith or in good faith we argue that the action of the president in receiving this Intel is not an impeachable offense thank you your honor ladies and gentlemen yes sir are you saying the every attack against the president is an attack against the state yes your honor the president is the chief executive of our nation the president is the commander-in-chief of all armed forces and attack to the office of the president is an attack to us all Filipinos to continue faintly your honor ladies and gentlemen residents is duty-bound to protect his presidency from any attempts of the destabilizers and communists conspiring to remove him from office not as a matter of right but as a matter of obligation not for personal interests but this insurer natch national security and political stability and public welfare according to B&B spokesman Chief Superintendent Vanina Dharana on September 20th 2018 there is already an existing movement started by different groups throughout the President and there is a continuing threat against his life and position second level of analysis here honors on the strength of the president's residual powers he may receive foreign Intel information to protect national security and public welfare in the case of Marcos vs. Mongoose it was stated that receive all powers of the president is whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial it has two minutes for the cross-examination good evening Council good evening your honors my interpolation will be on three levels on the first one council would you agree with me that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land yes it is would you agree with me that the right to privacy is a constitutional right yes it is Thank You counsel would you agree with me that the unlawful foreign surveillance is a violation of this constitutional yes but if it's above everyone else the president should uphold the Constitution regarding this unlawful foreign surveillance is a violation of this duty it's not yes yes because you think that above all as the president runs okay if snake you can so for my second level counsel would he agree with me that our country is a democracy yes if they're saying to counsel would you agree with me that citizens have the right to express themselves as long as it falls under the perusal of the it's mass of course Thank You counsel would you agree with me that communication between or among citizens expressing political beliefs falls under this right yes executive secretary said that the threat to national security is actually not sure is not actually if well your information was began September 11 but there is an okay line of questioning is done thank you thank you well thank you let's now hear from the third affirmative speaker side rec you've got four minutes to tell us why it would be practicable to deem president that there this acceptance of foreign Intel and Filipinos as an impeachable offense so authority to determine whether a particular app is tantamount an impeachable offense is vested in Congress gentlemen your honors good evening on the issue of practicability we must answer the following question first is feasible to consider that the president's receipt of intelligence from foreign sources as an impeachable offense and second would it serve the best interest of the country and its citizenry in the long run to reiterate it is conceded by both houses with the president expressly stated that he received intelligence from foreign sources and the affirmative side is only required to prove how the deceit of foreign intelligence on Filipino constitutes an impeachable offense first we ask the question is it feasible to declare the receipt of foreign intelligence as an impeachable offense yes we answer in the affirmative it is feasible to do so because intent of the constitutional framers and the rulings of the Supreme Court said so in France in Francisco versus nagamma saket nama an Angolan among the GAO Filipino as reaffirmed an ombudsman Gutierrez versus the House of Representatives the Supreme Court held that that the determination of an impeachable offense is a purely political question which the whole situation has left the sound discretion of the legislature then the 1986 Constitutional Commission record show that the framers could find no better way to approximate the boundaries of the trail of public trust and other high crimes than by alluding to both the positive and the negative examples without arriving at their clear-cut definition or even a standard therefore this open standard was applied by Congress when it declared that the mere omission of an entry in the salad is unimpeachable effects prior to former Chief Justice Quran as impeachment failure to file one salad much less the omission to include an entry therein was not an impeachable offense but the reason the Congress Authority and the last part clear-cut definition it was elevated to an impeachable offense therefore we argue on the on the question of feasibility that with all things being fair in equal if the Congress did it before there is nothing preventing them from doing the same thing right now especially so when the very Constitution and the right the privacy of the Filipinos are at stake but secondly we asked would it be the in the best interest of the country and its citizenry in the long run and still we answered with a yes the impeachment process are intended to protect the Filipino people from the excesses of their officials by holding them accountable for their actions the president's receipt of foreign intelligence on the Filipino sends a wrong signal to the international community that we are thoroughly we are tolerating the wrongdoings committed against our citizens by instituting it as an impeachable offense not only does it hold the president accountable for his action it also strengthens the protection of the Filipinos rights of privacy consequently Constitution Council is it also not beneficial to the Filipinos even in the long run to have strong ties with other nations in the sharing of information in protection for preservation of security yes of course your honor if they say it is important however in this case it is used as a weapon against the citizens is a and that is not something that we should condone in this presentation right more importantly instituting the receipt of unlawful foreign servants a surveillance as an impeachable offense is a declaration to the international community that such actions are condemned in the strongest legal manner available and serves as a warning against the future similar acts in closing your honor we must remember public official public office is a public trust we ask the affirmative side implore you to roll on our favor because when the very person who ought to faithfully execute and protect the rights enshrined in the Constitution renegades on his promise and endangers his country's sovereignty and silences the very voice two minutes for the cross-examination have you been reading or watching the news yes are you aware that the cpp-npa has actually been very vocal on their attempts and intentions to overthrow the government yes they have been saying that in the media in fact right in recent news okay have you heard of how the al-qaeda leaders were arrested in Pakistan in 2005 yes yes have you heard of how the Taliban were chased out of their hideouts do you know that these were made possible because of foreign liaisons on intelligence information now are you familiar with a murabbi siege council yes yes of course are you aware that defense secretary Lorenzana himself admitted that it was due to failure again telling are you saying that every option no no just a yes or no no what did you agree that these events are matters of national security no these are not not matters of national security council they are ok counsel is there is received foreign Intel from foreign sources this allowed in the Philippine Constitution if you let me qualify I will answer your question it is not actually expressing this aloud correct it is in violation of the anti we're not in law which is a law duty of the state to protect that is what the Constitution mandates and it is global violation of the Constitution yes yes thank you no mr. speaker it is is it your contention that there is foreign interference in this case yes but are you aware that foreign interference is totally different from foreign diplomatic relations policy of cooperation and Amity between nations glimmery you have four minutes to rebut ceedric and advance your argument on why it would not be practicable to deem president to tear this acceptance a foreign Intel as an impeachable offense regardless of who may be sitting in the presidency he has the duty by law and by the nature of his office to counter any threats plots or attacks against the government your honors ladies and gentlemen good evening appoint a rebuttal on the key arguments of the affirmative the affirmative argues that receipts of foreign Intel is a breach of our national security but we say authorized sharing Intel information is actually part and parcel of our diplomatic relations with other countries to address common security questions that we cannot say that we do not need such augmentation from our foreign instructors second sharing of portal Intel is also not optimal a relinquishment of our sovereignty this is a national security concern affecting the presidency thus it is a fight to protect sovereignty as a nation and not to relinquish it third your honors it is correct that the right to privacy advice is inviolable exempts when public safety or order requires it as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Savannah versus Committee of trade relations the threats to national security takes supremacy over issues regarding the right to privacy and communication and any threat to the presidency is a threat involving public safety and general welfare of the Filipinos now on to my constructive your honors regardless of who may be sitting in the presidency he has the duty as chief executive and commander-in-chief to defend his office to protect ours our soldiers our people the governments of the nation as a whole and that duty necessitates receipt of intelligence information be it from local or foreign sources and such will not amount to an impeachable offense your honors what we aim is to prevent eventualities since the 9/11 attack the role of Foreign Intelligence has taken center stage in the Global War on Terror yes your honor are you saying that the end justifies the means of course not your honor but foreign intelligence sharing is not new to the Philippines and in fact this is in keeping with a mandate of the Constitution that the state must protect the people and property liberty and life against terrorism your honors thank you to proceed since the 9/11 attack in Seoul acquired through foreign liaison is widely credited with having helped impede attacks in other countries such as arrest al-qaeda leaders in Pakistan in the Philippines history has taught us that failure of intelligence can catastrophic the series of blasts yes your honor this council what about the fact that it involved the specific mention of political enemies of the president is that not an invitation instead to prosecute these people in the public arena instead of protecting national security Your Honor what we have to work on are facts and what we know as of this moment is the fact that it was the Communist rebels who have the definite intention to overthrow the government and we are not even talking about political opposition's or disclosure or use we are only talking about the mere receipt of his insult information and we have the chhoti the president has the duty to counter these intentions to overthrow the government state your honor now in Samarra we see ladies and gentlemen defense secretary Lorenzana admitted that the military failed appreciate intelligence all reports on the movement of the motor group these are just some of the tragic results of the failure of intelligence but of course that is not saying that when there is failure of intelligence on our part we have to immediately resort to and depend solely on foreign Intel no but right now your honors we have to recognize the fact that our information gathering and analysis may not be as sophisticated as that of our foreign intelligence counterparts who might have invaluable information that could significantly augment our own based on these proceedings your honors it is clear that presidents in most countries in the world have long directed the acquisition of insult information both from local and foreign sources pursuant to the Constitution two minutes for the cross-examination do you think I'm good evening casa have you read the news yes are you aware that the information pertains broadly to its critics of course not it also it involves information regarding communist levels and other terms thank you sir are you saying that would you consider it if we make an exception for the attempt on the life of the president yes would you make an exception right it is it is an attack or a threat on the office and therefore the nation as a whole therefore what if we make an exception we're only going to we're going only to make that an act that is not impeachable but the other acts 13:2 other critics which would not endanger the life of the president no that would be far fetched counsel because we are only talking about you have to devote around the facts in the first place already fallen because what your argument only fall only relies upon the the situation that there is actually a national territory in the first place national are you aware already but it was not really proven that there was an the communist rebels themselves if you've been reading the news that you come is it your proposition that this Act should be contingent upon only bad faith but we have already stated that you cannot make you that you cannot do this if there is no court order at all no court order or when Public Safety or public that in Spain otherwise requires its or Council let's now hear what our judges have to say about our debaters attorney chew how did the affirmative side the University of Santo Tomas do first of all you did a good job in presenting your position considering that the issue can be interpreted in various ways and it's very general you made your points clear and concise however in the in defending your answers you might need a little bit more push to get your point across say thank you and congratulations an attorney pineapple how did the negative side core has to college – I would like to congratulate the Kurisu College the negative side for preparing well and for preparing for almost every eventualities in the present turns of the argument but what really shone for me as far as the performance of the negative side goes is their their command of the of the of the language and their experience in speaking and in debate and that it is shown in the that really shot in the in the in exchanges and in the interpolations in this match so congratulations now let's hear from our chief adjudicator judge and Chatta your honor who did the judges pick for best speaker the best speaker for tonight has been the paper it choice among judges she's no other than glimmer read the malarial Brumby negative side and Your Honor the school that won tonight's round I just wonder this school has consistently won in every debate it participated in so this is a good sign that it has improved as time goes by the winner is the permit website and on the negative side called the circle it's a big congratulations to core has to college for winning the third round of square off season 16 the firm debates I'm Micah Reza thank you for watching [Applause]

15 thoughts on “ANC Square Off: The Firm Debates | University of Santo Tomas v. Cor Jesu College | Sept. 23, 2018”

  1. God that first speaker got caught in whammy, her arguments are so not well thought. Normally during a debate you start strong and finish even stronger. No wonder they lost this debate, though it's really hard to argue on this topic on the affirmative side.

  2. one of the judges was once defeated by cor jesu in this very same competition… if not mistaken cor jesu took home the bacon during that time…. am from ust civil law, the first two ladies from uste were good but cor jesu saved the best for last.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *