ANC: The Firm Debates | University of San Carlos v. University of the Philippines | QFinals

ANC: The Firm Debates | University of San Carlos v. University of the Philippines | QFinals

Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to the Philippines is historic not only because it's the first state visit of a Chinese leader to Manila in 13 years but also because it could pave the way for a possible joint exploration in the disputed waters and this is exciting a lot of investors just look at the share price movement of companies like pxp energy which has a long-standing proposal to jointly explore the rectal Bank with China's CNOOC but before we get into the economic implications of a possible deal well a joint development even be legal hello I'm Mike Uriah and you're watching square-off season 16 the firm debates [Applause] China Telecom winning the Philippine telco race with its local partner Denis poi and a commitment to conclude a code of conduct in the disputed South China Sea within three years all that book ended the visit of Chinese leader Xi Jinping to Manila earlier this month the latter in particular stirring excitement in the oil and gas industry with the prospect of a joint exploration deal shining even brighter China is also ready to further discuss with their favorite food about the joint development of oil and gas the output a Memorandum of Understanding between the two states that provides a framework for any possible future cooperation the reactions however have been missed right now it doesn't actually form the basis of any option or any specific project now it's it's just it's just a basis to continue to negotiate from a young made decision I'm happy but I papaya now para chemical are not in a position on China when in tyonne penelo don't knock it estaba I'm Paulo critics worried that president de Zarate who's been very open about a China pivot may be selling out the country in exchange for soft loans any type a tewara in the Maserati is a russian pop malama deal a pathetic Nevada Honda my Corona good beer no hippie nama guy you are the decision and I empanada India biodome Sri Lanka's a pollutant and China's on top where Zaheer no Naga Suho New York on Young Saeng Maulana Portnoy wΓΌrttemberg daughter say some 99 years now please sir China villain vampire amid all of this mulatto young insists that no sovereignty is or ever will be given up but will be joint exploration and development of the West Philippine Sea between the Philippines and China be unconstitutional arguing for the affirmative side is the University of San Carlos from the Queen City of the South Cebu the next generation lawyers from the university of san carlos debating for me it's all about this course it's not about imposing your will over the opponent it's all about at the end of the day it's all about learning together in the certain topic that we would like to expound there's nothing more I can say about my teammates they're all confident they're all excellent and well prepared for the future matches that we will be facing debating is a process of learning the issues and applying them to everyday situations as a debater you are the person who first and foremost learns and gets to know and gets to the fore of these issues debating is both a sport and also a type of discourse so there's mental sparring involved there's a lot of skill involved in it but it also the rather the goal of debate is to really bring forth a message to the public that there are certain issues that we need to discuss and you know bring the specific art to a specific level team university of san carlos driven dynamic discipline and taking on the negative side is the university of the philippines imbued with honor and excellence the next generation lawyers from the University of the Philippines debating for me is a way to understand different issues not just from your or not just from your own bubble but also to understand issues from different perspectives and unlike the usual kind of discourse that is plaguing the internet right now the babe is more structured and therefore you can't really have personal attacks the beating for me is a big challenge as I think of myself as not a very eloquent speaker so debating with the away from me to improve my speaking skills as well as I think it's training ground for a future practice of law especially if I choose the path of litigation I also debated in undergrad so it was a way of learning more about the world and the views of different people and how we can engage with each other team University of the Philippines sharp fierce diverse and now let's meet our distinguished judges first off we have attorney Antonio Miguel Liu a senior associate at the VNA law firm next we have attorney Ferdinand Kostas he's a professor at the Athenian law school he's also a lecturer at the Philippine judicial Academy and the center for global best practices and presiding as our chief adjudicator is judge Maria Teresa come along from the regional trial court branch nine of malai Valley City 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 allottee 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 speaker's 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 a joint exploration and development of the West Philippine Sea between the Philippines and China is unconstitutional first up for the affirmative side is can you've got four minutes to tell us why jointly exploring and developing areas in the disputed waters is unconstitutional your honors ladies and gentlemen good evening on the line today is article 12 section 2 of the 1987 Constitution which provides that all natural resources are owned by the state its exploration development and utilization shall be under the full control and supervision of the state the Constitution provides your honors that in the exploration development and utilization of these resources a third-party corporation may participate in at least two ways first the state may enter into production joint venture or production sharing agreement with a domestic corporation at least 60% of whose capital is owned by Filipino citizens second your honors the president may enter into an agreement with a foreign oil corporation but only with respect to technical or financial assistance thus article 12 of the Constitution underscores two things first it makes a distinction between a joint venture for exploration and development which is the topic of tonight's debate and a financial or technical assistance agreement second it specifies the kind of corporation qualified to undertake each scheme tonight's proposition your honors involves joint exploration and development between Philippines and China we submit your honors that joint exploration and development part takes the nature of a joint venture which may only be participated by a domestic corporation at least 60% of whose capital is owned by the Filipino citizens yes your honor please are you saying that the joint exploration is not financial or technical assistance your honors if that is the case your honors then this debate is have fun in this case your honors the part this choice of the word joint is deliberate with full knowledge of its legal consequences this is further supported by the previous contemporaneous and subsequent conduct of the parties leading to the draft freemar this leads me to my next argument your honors the negative side may argue that joint exploration and development with China which is the topic of tonight's debate is constitutional primarily because an FDA a is allowed by the Constitution your honors for emphasis joint exploration and development is not FDA a and FDA a is not joint exploration in development in joint venture your honors as held in kilos by and vs. King Ghana it presupposes mutual right of control community of interests and beneficial ownership this leads me your honors to the further evidence between the Memorandum of Understanding and the joint maritime agreement for oil and gas exploration which the where this is the proposal between Philippines and China which provides for provisions on mutual respect mutual benefit and outcome sharing on the other hand your honors a joint venture is an antithesis of an FTA a this has been made clear already in the case of La Boogaloo Bella and versus Ramos were in the Supreme Court held that while an contractor is paid by the contracting state only for its technical services unlike the partner in a joint venture your honors an FDA a holder acquires no beneficial ownership and no right of control therefore this leads us to conclude that a joint exploration and development which is the topic of tonight's debate is not a mere financial or technical assistance which a foreign old corporation may only participate in conclusion your honors when we speak of joint exploration and development the Constitution cannot be any clearer at the state may only do so with a corporation a domestic corporation at that at least 60% of which is owned by Filipino citizens clearly not a foreign corporation or worse not a foreign state as that of China thank you for your time and indulgence your honors two minutes for the cross-examination good day Council they hope you're having a good one of course good evening so you mentioned section two article 12 of the Constitution precisely where and you cited that the expiration development and utilization of Natural Resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the state that's what I said to speak and it also provides for different options for the state to directly undertake such activities in the production yes those were the three major schemes madam speaker yes and so aside from the arrangements wherein these agreements may be with either Filipino corporations or associations with the 6040 capture event changements okay now so for large the Constitution under Article article 12 section 2 paragraph 4 states that for large scale at exploration development and utilization of minerals petroleum and other mineral oils the president may enter into agreements with foreign owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance according to the general terms and conditions provided by law correct that is correct yes this is this doctrine is reinforced in the case of La poubelle Villa and which she decided because FDA is involved in la Boogaloo Bella yes I see so are you familiar with PD 87 yes yes so BD 87 provides the terms and conditions contemplated in the Constitution requires in philippine mining up yes so basically you are seeing that FDA is our constitutional okay FDA is our constitutional because the contractor merely extends technical or financial assistance which is not joint exploration and development so your limiting the definition of joint exploration and development to join the chorus use of the word joint is deliberate you familiar will provide that service fun are you familiar with an MoU with a Memorandum of yes so under the Memorandum of Understanding the joint steering committee if the joints steering committee for example agrees to form an fda a that would be constitutional Amy you have four minutes to advance your argument on why a joint exploration deal between Manila and Beijing to explore and develop areas in the disputed waters is legal beautiful people of the audience your honors a pleasant day 12 the affirmative position seems to be that it is illegal or unconstitutional to enter into any and oil joint exploration and development arrangements with China in the West Philippine Sea for the purpose of this debate however joint exploration and development should not be seen merely as an arrangement between two countries or two states to agree to explore or exploit an area's resources together this view is not only over simplistic this is problematic in light of the new conditions that we are facing right now in reality the joint development and exploration under scrutiny today is of a different nature as we can see from the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding or MOU between the Philippines and China unlike the usual joint development agreements this is not being entered into because there is an ongoing territorial dispute neither does the MOU contain any claims on the rights and obligations of the parties involved because of this MOU the government can be more flexible in reaching an agreement with China under different development and exploration regimes such as financial and technical assistance agreements or F das as well as other types of service contracts under this framework we in the negative side submit that such endeavors to explore and develop the resources in the West Philippines in with China are not unconstitutional for two reasons first this will provide Filipino citizens the opportunity to use and enjoy the resources in our exclusive economic zones REE Z's this will fulfill the policy behind article 12 section 2 of the Constitution regarding the exploration development and utilization of natural resources and as elucidated in the lab oogle villa encase this provision is meant to allow Filipinos to benefit from these resources the MoU with China has not even yet determined which specific maritime areas in the Philippines will be explored and developed and given the wide breadth of options that is provided by the MOU as to how to go about this joint exploration and development it is safe to presume that the government will pursue the constitutional route the presumption of constitutionality thus applies and there is no incentives for the parties through it by virtue of this MOU to enter into agreements that will be validly uncountable that will be patently unconstitutional and it will be pointless to enter in agreements that will be an odd one it is subjected to the scrutiny of the courts it would just be impractical for them so under a service contract model we are not we will not be ceding profits to the Chinese government rather they will be shared with possibly Chinese entities who are acting as contractors or maybe investors subject to limitations prescribed by blood that's your honor counsel wouldn't the Filipinos benefit more if only the Philippines will explore and develop in a perfect world I thank you for your question counsel in the perfect world yes however the reason why this provision for financial and technical assistance agreements are there is because we may not have all the means and technology in order to explore and develop our resources and the financial and technical assistance agreement will kick in for them to just provide us with the technology and the resources and the initial resources so that we can develop them faster so our second reason for the constitutionality of these joint development and exploration agreements is because it does not actually compromise our territorial claims in fact it would even reinforce our territorial claims by virtue of this MOU we are putting China in a position where it has to respect our economic rights over our maritime territories in the West Philippine Sea moreover section 4 of the MOU states that the Memorandum of Understanding and all discussions negotiations and activities of two governments or their authorized representatives under or pursuant to this memorandum agreement Memorandum of Understanding will be played out without prejudice so they leave their positions of both governments thank you two minutes for the cross-examination madam speaker good evening again even you have shared a while ago that China will not receive any share in the exploration well you just mention I did not see the speaker you asking the question you have mentioned the Memorandum of Understanding yes and it provides for provisions on mutual benefit with no respect and autom sharing we have here's our general provisions now we have here counsel the actual copy of the Memorandum of Understanding and you have also read I presume that you have read the joint maritime agreement for oil and gas exploration just concluded this November agree you have read that this also provides for mutual benefit outcome sharing and veto respect agree yes and what is your question what is your but you will find the relevance madam speaker in 2016 in 2017 there is a joint statement between the Phillip in China regarding joint experimental speakers this shows the intention of these states to enter the joint exploration and development would you agree with me would you agree with me that meat will benefit meat will respect and outcome sharing which is the principle of the MOU that joint maritime agreement between Philippines and China madam Speaker let me let me finish my question this legal characteristics pertain to joint venture agree with Milan paya project yes of course is it not that malapa there's no issue as to whether it is joint exploration in development because between Philippines and shell the the contract is merely denominated a service contract agree yes it's okay okay would you agree with me that joint exploration and development which is joint venture may only be participated by domestic corporation agree the Constitution let's now hear from the second affirmative speaker Eunice you've got four minutes to tell us why it would be beneficial to d-mat China Philippines joint exploration of the West Philippine Sea as unconstitutional your honors ladies and gentlemen good evening the affirmative the negative side earlier argue that this je D is a different nature citing that they can enter into service contracts to make this Agreement constitutional your honors clearly the negative side has missed the spirit of this debate lest we be misconstrued the affirmative side is not against FDA s your honors this after this negotiation rather disagreement thus not partake of the nature of an FTA a the intent of the parties here consistently from the November 2016 and from the October 2017 joint statements between the Philippines and China carried over into the draft framework on joint oil and gas exploration the part is clearly stipulated and I quote mutual respect mutual benefit and outcome sharing your honors these elements are not present in a in an FDA or in the case of our back verses sanitary wares manufacturing corporation the Supreme Court expressly pronounced your honors that financial and technical assistance does not grant beneficial ownership to foreign corporations your honors thus clearly the intent of the Constitution in prescribing limitations in paragraph section 2 of article 12 is to limit the exercise of exploration development and utilizations only to FDA in FDA is only to foreign owned corporations which is not the case here your excellencies clearly the negative side by arguing that this joint exploration and development is not a joint venture has only your honors highlighted the fact that there are in fact agreements or engagements which are not regulated by the Constitution your honors this argument cannot stand in effect they are arguing that the provisions under Article 12 are not exclusive however your honors the provisions are art and under article 12 have to be construed strictly as Natural Resources are matters of vital public interest calling for a strict interpretation of the law as can be gleaned from page 354 a volume 3 of the records of the Constitutional Commission thus your honors the affirmative side submits that this joint exploration and development between the Philippines and China in the West Philippine Sea must be declared unconstitutional for at these two beneficial results first full control over a natural resources allows us to cope with every booming population and secondly declaring this unconstitutional would be to establish permanent sovereignty of our natural resources and strengthen the arbitral award for which we have won and earned the respect of the community of nations on our first point your honors the drafters of the Constitution themselves have acknowledged that we are a resource rich but populous nation where there is a constant demand and competition for resources in fact ginza to cite record number 56 of the Constitutional Commission your honors the reference to the national product being for the benefit of the Filipino people is to ensure that any effort towards national development must focus on the needs of the local population and not for consumers yes your honor are you saying this speaker that if we enter into this joint exploration we're already waving our sovereignty your honors is that what is written in the MOU your honors based on the MOU the perception or the intent of the parties is on a joint venture which can only be undertaken if it is with a foreign or rather a Filipino corporation but what is involved in this case your honors is there is an MOU undertaken with a state therefore it does not follow what is even contemplated in the Constitution thank you two minutes for the cross-examination my unhappily nice good afternoon okay so you mentioned that you were working from the draft of the femur draft framework yes yes we mentioned that a few days ago you are also aware that there have been a memorandum of understanding released between Philippines and China correct yes and staying rights for me yes thank you thank you thank you I know I'm sure yes I will correct you there is no outcome sharing under the memorandum wonders that is all yes yes thank you for your opinion okay under the Memorandum of Understanding outcome sharing that first affirmative so insists on us is no longer under the Memorandum of Understanding which is the basis which is now which now brings the two countries okay to my next question it is your position that the joint the joint exploration and development isn't the nature of a joint venture correct yes real way either yes are you aware it there is a legal definition of a joint venture yes it's wonder where thank you think of your knees so you're aware that the joint venture is not the same as a joint exploration and development no I do not agree me speak so you're saying this is the same they have the same energy units as the first affirmative discussed a joint joint exploration and development can be can be done in different ways do you agree joint exploration and abeyance in the context of this debate yeah seeker later thank you nice under the Constitution and article 12 section 2 are you aware that it specifically provides that the precedent we entered into FDA is for – no it is not it definitely stands for your FPE an additional Constitution the utilization of minerals petroleum and other mineral oils may be the president may be entered president me enter operating to this out in FTEs is that correct yes yes not yes but you limit your arguments into mineral and do the other other portions of this our Constitution you're giving yourselves you're giving a limited view to the audience misleading this court as to the interpretation of this provision okay Jules you've got four minutes to tell us why it would not be in the country's best interest to dima joint exploration of the West Philippine Sea as unconstitutional yes good afternoon ladies and gentlemen before I go to my speech I would like to have a few rebuttals first it seems that the affirmative side is not updated with the times as they are giving arguments based on the joint at the draft framework of the agreement between the Philippines and China but as we know there's already a Memorandum of Understanding between China and the Philippines second lefur motive seems to be limiting our joint exploration and development as joint ventures as the first affirmative has actually discussed very different ways in which the Philippines can explore and develop its resources and finally the affirmative believes that there is no outcome that there is outcome sharing in the memorandum understand understanding but as we all know and we can review it right now in our documents if there is no such outcome sharing under the Memorandum of Understanding now on to my speech our proposition is beneficial for two reasons first we need a joint and joint exploration and development because their energy resources are dwindling and second the investments that we have done in the past have have gone nowhere because of several disruptions on to our first point mana by a gas field is seen to plummet to a third of its current capacity by 2024 and is estimated to last only until 2029 depending on the demand in the coming years the Milan biogas will supplies 40 percent of the energy needs of the soil as it is expected to last only for 10 years there is a pressing need for another energy source to replace the dwindling supply of Milan paya significantly at least 10 years is required to pursue natural gas and petroleum energy projects women Empire runs out of natural gas the other viable option is to resort to importing fuel however it will definitely entail a higher cost which will be passed on to the poor consumers but why was resort to importing when we have resources just waiting to be extracted areas in the West Philippine Sea contain enormous deposits of natural gas according to the United States Energy Information Administration there are deposits in the West Philippine Sea which could hold at least 5.4 billion barrels of oil and fifty five point one trillion cubic feet of natural gas leader from the United States Geological Survey also show that there is significant deposits of hydrocarbons which are used in the production of fuel these resources as well as those of the untapped areas are definitely sufficient to answer for our energy needs on my second point our previous of investments have gone nowhere because of several disruptions if we remember about in 2003 Philippines already conducted open the first public bidding for oil exploration over the West Philippine Sea but there were no bids why so for two reasons first China kept opposing it and second we could not guarantee profits over the expiration because the area is in dispute it is to be noted that there have also been several instances where service contracts awarded awarded over at certain areas in the West Philippine Sea have not pushed through also because of China's opposition and interference worthy to note is in 2015 forum energy was awarded a service contract over a retro prep rock Toback which was eventually ordered suspended because of the brewing dispute between the Philippines and China and instances where the Philippines made efforts to to explore and develop natural resources over the West West Philippine Sea China has made clear its opposition by several acts of lashing out for example when they were not included in the development of the recto Bank China started to conduct reclamation projects build artificial islands and actually installed military installments these destructive acts of China clearly made it difficult for us for the Philippines to invest and exploit these resources however the move towards cooperation agreements and the inclusion of China is more toward benefit as we will be able to fully enjoy and explore the resources that the West Philippine Sea holds this is the key to solving our problem of building energy resources as against two minutes for the cross-examination the speaker are you aware of the case of art back which is sanitary reason light and me okay in this case the court defines joint venture and I quote as community of interest sharing of benefits and losses and a mutual right of control yes now my speaker you mentioned earlier the Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation yes I did and isn't not that I get your of course your paragraph two yes I'm aware and you're also very paragraph two of the draft framework yes I'm also aware and is it not that in both these documents the underlying principle is a mute wall then why do you go to the underlying principle counsel on your leave the Twain yes sure it okay in the memory in the understanding there is no more okay now some sherry is this not that community of interest at this community yeah I'm serious there is not a joint venture is a joint and you are limiting the joint operation the willingness to a joint venture is a technical term is my time you mentioned earlier that the Philippines has no capacity to explore this on their own that's okay are you aware of the records of the Constitutional Commission specifically number 56 in this record the speaker the framers themselves acknowledge your honors that we are a state that is limited in where in technical and scientific scales exactly however they chose specific provisions in our constitution limiting the exploration you say yes clearly it limits X psi organization so that you are using and also provide exceptions when it comes to oil petroleum and mineral oil proceed with my with my question is it not that in those records the drafters themselves recognized that the direction of the Constitution should be the way yourself a good–nice reliance of dependent economy but at this point in time that your mission for us is feasible as of this moment as you can see we are not in we cannot with Mike this is my time you're there for you acknowledge that the intent of the framers is yes but it is not a solution let's now hear from the third affirmative speaker Justine you've got four minutes to tell us why it would be practicable to consider a joint exploration of the West V B and C by claimant countries China and the Philippines as unconstitutional your honors friends good evening your honors there is a need to be technical in this case as it is about our natural resources the negative would want us to believe that joint exploration and development as a phrase only pertains to a mere description of a different regime such as an F EE your honors we refute this allegation as a matter of fact as a matter of law as a matter of that if we review the pertinent documents the previous subsequent and contemporaneous acts of China and the Philippines since 2016 in 2017 under paragraph five and three of these joint statements the words and I quote mutual benefit and outcome sharings exist your honors although negative said that outcome sharing has been deleted from the memory Memorandum of Understanding currently in November 2018 the words mutual benefit has not been removed your honors again we emphasize as a matter of law these states are aware of the legal consequences of their acts if it is indeed the intention of China and the Philippines to enter into a service squadron they should have changed the words in the documents and yet they have not the consistency or honors is what we are debating upon in this debate which leads me to the issue of practicability the negative the negative spurred instruction he proved that the constitutionality of the proposition is actually correct we repeat this allegation for two reasons first section 22 article 12 of the 1987 Constitution provides and I quote the acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions under this article shall be inimical to national interests and subject to criminal and civil sanctions as may be provided by law it must be noted that article 12 on national economy in patrimony is only second to article 3 on the Bill of Rights which provides an express provision on criminal and civil sanctions as mentioned by Commissioner Neelie doe and the records of the Constitutional Commission 3:8 for the provisions of this article must be applied strictly against any act that would be improper in the use of our natural resources therefore there is a need to dig into the technicalities of this debate your honors the negative would also want us to believe that if we allow China to proceed to disputed waters and there will already be a resolution to these problems your honors it is not the ruling of the arbitration committees it's no longer disputed West Philippine Sea as amended and under administrative order number twenty-nine published by President Aquino in 2012 belongs to the state it falls under the sovereign yes your honor mr. speaker if joint exploration is not the answer then what is your honors the answer is financial and technical assistance what we are saying here is that there is actually no existing agreement yet the purpose of this debate is to inform our public officials but we should enter only to a service contract with China and not a joint agreement the political uproar your Excellencies is already against the influence and illegal infiltration of China in our waters as recently said even reporters have been prevented to enter these waters less to be misconstrued we want to develop our resources for as long as they are exercised with utmost restraint that were true in a world where there is a foreboding Goliath through this China the rule of law is our weapon and shield against attacks in the law we must rest because if we do not follow the text of our Constitution we will face catastrophic consequences your honors an FDA is not a joint exploration and development and thus we understand it with that note thank you please the court two minutes for the cross-examination is it your contention in the affirmative that it is the very memorandum of understanding entered into by our foreign secretaries that is itself the joint agreement or the joint developed nurse time what we say is that this be it reflects a never public official council okay so therefore you are aware that it is the contracts and the agreements that would result from this understanding between our countries that have to be examined and scrutinized for their constitutionality yes of course however why would we be talking about something okay and that's why on your side the allegation that a joint development is only a joint venture cannot stand because that is speculative on your side no it's not because it has to be strictly construed as provided by the records of the Constitutional Commission where it's the source joy are not exactly service contractor okay to clarify okay so you're therefore seeing that the only thing that you're against is our state's entering into joint ventures and that is only that is the only type of agreement that you would find to be unconscious I see because the documents show the intention is to enter into joint venture so you're trying to protect your honors in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding okay you understand that in paragraph 3 B there is not yet a particular area the maritime areas are yet to be determined by the joint steering committee again issue because admission order number 29 seconds in the kina 2012 already defined these territories there is no yet defined area in which there would be cooperation agreements because the joint agreement did not construe our ad mystic order number 39 which defines what fluency is miss speaker if we rely highly on bass the West Philippine Sea do not appear in the memorandum yesterday or 29 it defines all our territories which are no longer disputed and that is actually what is the position pea you have four minutes to tell us why it would not be practicable to deem be proposed joint exploration of the West Philippine Sea as unconstitutional on November 20th when there was the signing of the memorandum of understanding between our governments as represented by our foreign secretaries it was clear that the landscape changed when it came to discussing China and the Philippines cooperating within the maritime area and this is so because the draft framework that they were that they have been basing a lot of their arguments from only embodies what China wanted to demand from us whereas the memorandum of agreement is what stands to show what is the real understanding of the parties that's the reason why things like outcome sharing no longer appear this is the reason completely why there is a paragraph for the relevant position of the states let us reiterate which our first speaker had already spoken of and that they did not acknowledge the idea that there are no rights and obligations created under international or domestic law by this memorandum and that any of the acts of the joint steering committee any of the cooperation arrangements that would arise from them do not prejudice prejudice the respective legal positions of these states this was clearly entered into and made a part of the memorandum of understanding precisely because there are no territorial claims that are being given up by our state we think on their side the reason why the affirmative been very has been very clear in terms of their debate only being limited to joint ventures is because they think that this is a debate merely about the territorial dispute that is not the case this is a debate about the utilization of our natural resources and they say that the only way that the Philippines will do it with China is to enter into these joint ventures we don't think that that's clear at all precisely because when you look at paragraph three paragraph 3b which does discuss the responsibilities of the joint steering committee that was formed which is in fact to create those cooperation arrangements which is to identify the working areas we think that that's clear that many different regimes can govern when it comes to these different area working areas which means that the legal the the legal and constitutional agreements that are enumerated on their article article 12 section tools first paragraph as well as fourth paragraph can all enter into it because we have enterprises that are representing us on both sides in in terms of that joint steering committee which means that it's not necessarily the case that it's always going to be the CNO see yes man speaker what then is the purpose of the joint exploration if not for the benefit of both or the mutual benefit of both countries we think madam it's clear that when it comes to just returns that are that are identified under PD 87 which is the governing law on oil and gas development those will be built into the service contracts and those are the considerations but what that would that would be provided to the Chinese entities who we would be cooperating with and we think when that is the case and the fact that we do have lost that do govern and lost that will be written into the agreements that we may enter whether or not they are the FDA is we think that precisely that we think then precisely that it's clear that we're not giving up the mutual beneficial ownership of these areas in the maritime resources particularly they say that the FTAA is all that they would allow but we're still not sure madam which actors would be participating but yesterday are you saying that the joint exploration and development is actually a technical and financial assistance we are seeing that the FTAA could be the result of them because we think that the memorandum of agreement of understand you rather provides the roadmap and it will be what and what results okay two minutes now for the cross-examination good evening miss speaker miss me Kurt you mentioned paragraph four of the MOU right yes yes okay so you also note this that in paragraph through the words mutual benefit still exists yes okay and you also notice that the purpose of that MOU is actually to create a joint steering committee yes okay so therefore we can actually rely only on them will you write we take in tension speaker don't you believe but under the principle international law subsequent contemporaneous in previous conducts of state must be thick enough must be taken to consideration circumstances have changed for two you have to see us in terms of how they're going to be meant so therefore you are therefore you concede that because there were intentions by China to enter to joint steering committees therefore the intention of the states is actually to enter into joint venture you have not entering into a joint arrangement with this it's precisely because they are respecting our right there are interests so you also mentioned that these waters are still disputed correct and there were still identify these working areas Korea yes because there's this very agreement two of the own gloss yes and under this the coastal state has the sovereign right over our shores I rather our continental shelf including that in the big specific anomic zone which is 200 nautical miles yes yes which is called incorporates with therefore it is no longer disputed because these waters are already ours so you concede that we no longer need to negotiate from both sides it would so you are even me that when you say mutual there is also a share of control no we don't think that's the case no further questions let's now hear what our judges have to say about our debaters attorney Liu how did the affirmative side do now permit of SIA was able to set the tone in the direction of this debate and give the nested the quit basis for their arguments and attorney castes how did the negative side do the negative side presented more or less on the practicality and economic benefits of the joint exploration and it was limited to such only now let's hear from our chief adjudicator judge Maria Theresa Tama no your honor who did the judges pick for best speaker for the best speaker we have the first speaker of the affirmative side can Akira and the school that won tonight's debate this is very exciting the winner for tonight's debate is the affirmative side university of san carlos congratulations a big congratulations to the University of San Carlos for winning the final slot in the semi-finals I'm Mike yatha thank you for watching

27 thoughts on “ANC: The Firm Debates | University of San Carlos v. University of the Philippines | QFinals”

  1. Wow. UP should learn from their experience battling USC.. and USC, keep up the phase. You're doing great.
    Thank you for all the participants.. it's refreshing to learn.
    Sana may popcorn lang ako kanina wahahahaha

  2. Im from proud of usc. .but clearly UP exudes in wisdom but cannot do so because they took da most dificult side. F UP wud hav taken the side of USC, we can also witness how they lamabasted USC…

  3. USC rules,they always top on bar exams 4 consecutive years ands counting,basta BISDAK manghaud gyud!

  4. I like the fluency of that Sweet Queen's Fire. She only affirms PRRD's premise that we can't posture as a world power thus rule from that point but rather as equals, even if of uneven size. The MOU is negotiation in progress towards that intent. Sharing of risks and profits would come later.

  5. Maraming pang kakaining bigas ang mga taga USC bago maabot ang kahit ang heels ng sapatos ng isang Iskolar ng bayan.

  6. Kaya pala bigla akong nawalan ng malay kagabi ng pinanood ko ito nkatulog na pala ako. Pero binalikan ko ito ngayon muntikan naman ako mka tulog.πŸ˜‚
    Kudos sa mga tga usc.

  7. Yes Madame Adjudicator, in the end if the purported MoU from China prevailed then Philippine sovereignty and sovereign rights may be compromised. Sad but true! Urrggg

  8. Mahirap talaga kalabanin ang Supreme law of the land which is constitution.kaya good job UP For a fight

  9. marami ang nagsasabi dito na mahirap ang side ng UP aaminin ko naman yun pero kung talagang magaling ka at well trained kahit anong side ka pa kaya mong ibahin ang sitwasyon

  10. Ang galing naman ng topic niyo. Sa UP pa talaga ang negative. That's like forcing robredo to explain the acceptability of Duterte's dirty jokes. ABiaS talaga πŸ˜‚

Leave a Reply

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