Angel Capacio’s Blog

FACTS:

This is a petition for the disbarment of Atty. Eduardo M. Tuason, instituted by Emilio Sta. Maria.

Sometime in June 1955, Atty. Tuason represented the partnership of Sta. Maria, Guanzon and Chincuanco in a collection case against Enriqueta de Hidalgo, involving a promissory note of P50,000.00. Defendant Hidalgo in this case was declared in default and was ordered to pay. By virtue of a writ of execution, the provincial sheriff of Pampanga was able to obtain the amount of P22,930.64.

Respondent Tuason got the whole amount from the sheriff and applied it in the following manner : P10,000 attorney’s fees, P1,648 supposed expenses of litigation which he claimed to have advanced during the prosecution and the balance of P11,282.64 to Fausto Chincuanco, his uncle.

Despite demands from Sta. Maria to turn over the money to him or to the sheriff, respondent failed to comply and contempt proceedings were instituted against Tuason. The matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General who made the findings and recommendation that: respondent Tuason was not in connivance with his uncle Chincuanco in depriving petitioner of his lawful share in the liquidation of partnership assets, however, the collection of P10,000 as attorney’s fees after the case was terminated after one brief hearing is unreasonable. There was also no evidence presented to show that Tuason actually spent P1,648 for the expenses.

The Sol. Gen. recommended that instead of a more severe penalty which he would otherwise deserve, respondent be reprimanded for professional indiscretion, with a warning that a more severe penalty be imposed for the repetition of the same of similar acts.

ISSUE : Whether respondent committed acts that would merit his disbarment.

RULING:

The fact that the respondent placed his private and personal interest over and above that of his clients constitutes a breach of the lawyer’s oath, to say the least. Call it professional indiscretion or any other name, but the cold fact remains that the act is not conducive to the health growth of the legal profession. Respondent is hereby admonished that a repetition of similar acts will merit more drastic action.

neutrality

FACTS :

Beginning 2002, personnel from the armed forces of the United States started arriving in Mindanao, to take part, in conjunction with the Philippine military, in “Balikatan 02-1”. In theory, they are a simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty, a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United States in 1951.

On Feb. 2002, Lim filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, praying that respondents be restrained from proceeding with the so-called “Balikatan 02-1”, and that after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered issuing a permanent writ of injuction and/or prohibition against the deployment of US troops in Basilan and Mindanao for being illegal and in violation of the Constitution.

Petitioners contend that the RP and the US signed the Mutual Defense Treaty to provide mutual military assistance in accordance with the “constitutional processes” of each country only in the case of a armed attack by an external aggressor, meaning a third country, against one of them. They further argued that it cannot be said that the Abu Sayyaf in Basilan constitutes an external aggressor to warrant US military assistance in accordance with MDT of 1951. Another contention was that the VFA of 1999 does not authorize American soldiers to engage in combat operations in Philippine territory.

ISSUE :

Whether or not the “Balikatan 02-1” activities are covered by the VFA.

RULING :

Petition is dismissed. The VFA itself permits US personnel to engage on an impermanent basis, in “activities”, the exact meaning of which is left undefined. The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is couched in the negative, in that the US personnel “must abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political activity.”

Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is only logical to assume that “Balikatan 02-1” – a mutual anti terrorism advising assisting and training exercise falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement. Both the history and intent of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the VFA support the conclusion that combat-related activities – as opposed to combat itself – such as the one subject of the instant petition, are indeed authorized.

FACTS :

This is a petition for review, with a prayer for temporary restraining order to nullify and set aside the Order dated Dec. 04, 2006 of the Manila RTC.

In the middle of 2005, DepEd requested the services of the DBM-PS to undertake procurement project which is to be jointly funded by the World Bank (WB), thru the Second Social Expenditure Management Program (SEMP2) of the RP-IBRD Loan Agreement No. 7118-PH and the Asian Development Bank (ABD) thru SEDIP Loan No. 1654-PHI. In October 2005, the DBM-PS called for a bidding for the supply of the Makabayan textbooks and teachers manuals. Of the entities, foreign and local, only eleven (11) bidders submitted, including private respondent Kolonwel.

Following the bid and the book content/body evaluation process, DBM committee issued a resolution disqualifying, among others, Kolonwel for “failure in cover stock testing “. Kolonwel was informed of this and subsequently filed with RTC Manila a special civil action for certiorari with a prayer for TRO. In support of its TRO application, Kolonwel alleged, among other things, that the supply-awardees were rushing with the implementation of the void supply contracts to beat the closing-date deadline. After summary hearing, the Manila RTC issued a 20-day TRO, and later issued a decision wherein Resolution 001-2006-A of the DBM was annulled and set aside. Hence this petition.

ISSUE :

Will the petition prosper?

RULING :

The petition is granted and the assailed decision of the Manila RTC is hereby nullified and set aside.

Under the fundamental international principle of pacta sunt servanda, the RP, as borrower bound itself to perform in good faith the duties and obligations under Loan No. 7118-PH. Applying this postulate, the DBM IABAC, was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to the WB guidelines on the conduct and implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question.

Foreign loan agreements with international financial institutions, such as Loan No. 7118-PH, partake of an executive or international agreement within the purview of Sec. 4 of RA9184. Significantly, whatever was stipulated in the loan agreement, shall primarily govern the procurement of goods necessary to implement the main project.

FACTS :

This a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside and nullify Res. No. PJHL-A-04-012 dated May 27, 2004 issued by the Bids and Action Committee (BAC) of the DPWH. This resolution recommended the award to private respondent China Road and Bridge Corporation of the contract which consist of the improvement and rehabilitation of a 79.818-km road in the island of Catanduanes.

Based on an Exchange of Notes, Japan and the Philippines have reached an understanding that Japanese loans are to be extended to the country with the aim of promoting economic stabilization and development efforts.

In accordance with the established prequalification criteria, eight contractors were evaluated or considered eligible to bid as concurred by the JBIC. Prior to the opening of the respective bid proposals, it was announced that the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) was in the amount of P738,710,563.67. Consequently, the bid goes to private respondent in the amount of P952,564,821.71 (with a variance of 25.98% from the ABC). Hence this petition on the contention that it violates Sec. 31 of RA 9184 which provides that :

Sec. 31 – Ceiling for Bid Prices. – The ABC shall be the upper limit or ceiling for the bid prices. Bid prices that exceed this ceiling shall be disqualified outright from further participating in the proceeding. There shall be no lower limit to the amount of the award.

The petitioners further contends that the Loan Agreement between Japan and the Philippines is neither an international nor an executive agreement that would bar the application of RA9184. They pointed out that to be considered as such, the parties must be two (2) sovereigns or states whereas in this loan agreement, the parties were the Philippine government and the JBIC, a banking agency of Japan, which has a separate juridical personality from the Japanese government.

ISSUE :

Whether or not the assailed resolution violates RA 9184.

RULING :

The petition is dismissed. Under the fundamental principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda, which is in fact, embodied is Section 4 of RA9184, “any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory, shall be observed”. The DPWH,  as the executing agency of the project financed by the Loan Agreement rightfully awarded the contract to private respondent China Road and Bridge Corporation.

The Loan Agreement was executed and declared that it was so entered by the parties “in the light of the contents of the Exchange of Notes between the government of Japan and the government of the Philippines dated Dec. 27, 1999.” Under the circumstances, the JBIC may well be considered an adjunct of the Japanese government. The JBIC procurement guidelines absolutely prohibits the imposition of ceilings and bids.

FACTS :

The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court which “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdition over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern xxx and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions.” Its jurisdiction covers the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression as defined in the Statute. The Philippines signed the Statute on December 28, 2000. Its provisions, however, require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.

Hence this petition for mandamus filed by petitioners to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with Sec. 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Petitioners contend that ratification of a treaty, under domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate and it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. Respondents, however argue that it has no duty to transmit the copy of Rome Statute to Senate for concurrence.

ISSUE : Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the DFA have a ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute.

RULING :

Petition is dismissed.

In our system of government, the President, being the head of the state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.

Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides for a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 votes of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations.

Petitioners equate signing of the treaty with ratification, which are two different and distinct steps in the treaty-making process. Signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of good faith of the parties. Ratification, the other hand, is a formal act, executive by nature, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government.

The signature does not signify the final consent of the state to the treaty. It is ratification that binds the state to the provisions thereof. Under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence to the ratification. Such power of the President cannot be encroached by the courts via mandamus and the courts has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. Therefore, the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the executive branch of the government to transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to Senate.

FACTS :

On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and the United States of America forged a military bases agreement which formalized, among others, the use of installations in the Philippine territory by the US military personnel. To further strengthen their defense and security relationship, the Philippines and the US entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951. Under the treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public vessels and aircraft.

In 1991, with the expiration of RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the periodic military exercises between the two countries were held in abeyance. However, the defence and security relationship continued pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty. On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other things,  the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Negotiations by both panels on VFA led to a consolitdated draft text and a series of conferences. Eventually, President Fidel V. Ramos approved the VFA.

On October 5, 1998 President Joseph E. Estrada ratified the VFA thru respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting thru Executive Secretary Zamora officially transmitted to the Senate, the Instrument of Ratification, letter of the President and the VFA for approval. It was approved by the Senate by a 2/3 vote of its members. On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially entered into force after an exchange of notes between Secretary Siazon and US Ambassador Hubbard.

The VFA provides for the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions under which US Armed Forces and defense personnel may be present in the Philippines. Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the constitutionality of the VFA and imputing grave abuse of discretion to respondents in ratifying the agreement.

ISSUE : Whether or not the VFA is unconstitutional.

RULING :

Petition is dismissed.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. Sec. 21 Art. VII, which respondent invokes, reads: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate. Sec. 25 Art. XVIII provides : “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the RP and the US concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in and when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senateby the other contracting state”.

The first cited provision applies to any form of  treaties and international agreements in general with a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties and international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage or particular designation requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.

In contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence of foreign military bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. Both constitutional provisions share some common ground. The fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that Senate extended its concurrence under the same provision is immaterial.

Undoubtedly, Sec. 25 Art. XVIII which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases and troops should apply in the instant case. Hence, for VFA to be constitutional it must sufficiently meet the following requisites :

a) it must be under a treaty

b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate, and when so required by Congress, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum

c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State

There is no dispute in the presence of the first two requisites.  The third requisite implies that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the US treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. They are equally binding obligations upon nations. Therefore, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of the constitution.

The court also finds that there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the executive department as to their power to ratify the VFA.

     Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. Other sources have defined fallacy as a false notion, a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference, incorrectness of reasoning or belief, or the quality of being deceptive.

     The first known systematic study of fallacies was due to Aristotle in his De Sophisticis Elenchis (Sophistical Refutations). He listed thirteen types. After the Dark Ages, fallacies were again studied systematically in Medieval Europe. This is why so many fallacies have Latin names. The third major period of study of the fallacies began in the later twentieth century due to renewed interest from the disciplines of philosophy, logic, communication studies, rhetoric, psychology and artificial intelligence. (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

     Fallacious arguments are very common and can be quite persuasive to the casual reader or listener. By learning to spot them in your own and other’s writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read or hear.

     It is hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. So here are some of the most common fallacies, their definition and examples.

1. Accent Fallacy – is a fallacy of ambiguity due to the different ways a word is emphasized or accented.

     Example : A Congressman is asked if he is in favor of the new missile defense system, and responds, “I’m in favor of a missile defense system that effectively defends our country”.

      The shift on the emphasis of the words “effectively defends” from the word “favor” may give a different meaning to the remark.

2. Ad Hominem – means “against the man” or “against the person”. It is a general category of fallacies in which a claim is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author or the person presenting the argument.

     Example : A – “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.” B – “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”

3. Ad Populum – means “to the people” ; the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe in something because everyone else supposedly does.

     Example : “Gay marriages are immoral. 70% of the Americans thinks so!” While the opinion of most Americans may be relevant in what laws they should have, it certainly doesn’t determine what’s moral or immoral. The popular opinion isn’t always the right one.

4. Anecdotal Evidence – is discounting evidence arrived at by systematic research or by testing in favor of a few firsthand stories.

     Example : I’ve read the health warnings on cigarette labels and know all about that health research, but my brother smokes, and he says he’s never been sick a day in his life, so I know smoking can’t really hurt you.

5. Anthropomorphism – the error of projecting uniquely human qualities unto something that isn’t human, as in animals; but when done to nonliving things, the pathetic fallacy is created.

     Example : My dog is wagging his tail and running around me. Therefore, he knows that I love him.

6. Appeal to Authority – backing up reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. This fallacy is committed whenever the authority appealled to isn’t really much of an expert, cannot be trusted to tell the truth or is not really an authority on the subject.

     Example : We should not tolerate abortion. Many respected people, such as actress Miss Y, have publicly stated their opposition to it.

7. Appeal to Ignorance – this comes in two forms : (a) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false; (b) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true.

     Example : Nobody has ever proved to me that there’s a God, so I know there is no God.

8. Appeal to Money – uses the error of supposing that, if something costs a great deal of money, then it must be better; or if someone has a great deal of money, then they’re a better person in some way unrelated to having a great deal of money.

    Example : Mr. H is rich, so he should be the President of the Philippines.

9. Avoiding the Question – committed when the answer doesn’t really respond to the question asked.

     Example : Question – Would Team A be in first place if they were to win tomorrow’s game?  Answer – What makes you think they’ll ever win tomorrow’s game?

10. Begging the Question – a form of circular reasoning, in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion; asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence.

     Example : Women have rights, but women shouldn’t fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.

11. Black-or-White – is a false dilemma fallacy that unfairly limits you to only two choices. The key to diagnosing this fallacy is to determine whether the limited menu is fair or unfair.

     Example : Will you contribute P500 to our environmental fund, or are you on the side of environmental destruction?

12. Complex Question – framing a question so that some controversial presupposition is made by the wording of the question.

     Example : Question – Mr. President, are you going to continue your policy of wasting taxpayer’s money on missile defense?

13. Composition – mistakenly assuming that a characteristic of some or all the individuals in a group, is also the characteristic of the group itself, because the group “composed” of those members.

     Example : Every human cell is very lightweight, so a human being composed of cells is also very lightweight.

14. Confirmation Bias – the tendency to look only for evidence in favor of one’s controversial hypothesis and not to look for disconfirming evidence, or to pay insufficient attention to it. This is the most common kind of Fallacy of Selective Attention.

     Example : My wife loves me and there are so many ways that she has shown it. When we signed the divorce papers in her lawyer’s office, she wore my favorite color. She slapped me at the bar and called me a “handsome pig”, she used the word “handsome” when she didn’t have to.

15. Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc – means “with this, therefore because of this”; this is a false cause fallacy that doesn’t depend on time order, but on any other chance correlation of the supposed cause being in the presence of the supposed effect.

     Example : The tribe lives near our low-yield cornfields. So, the tribe are causing the low yields.

16. Definist – occurs when someone unfairly defines a term so that a controversial position is made easier to defend.

     Example : During a controversy about the truth or falsity of atheism, the fallacious reasoner says, ” Let’s define ‘atheist’ as someone who doesn’t yet realize that God exists.”

17. Denying the Antecedent – denying the antecedent of a conditional and then suppose that doing so is sufficient reason for denying the consequent.

     Example: If she were Brazilian, then she would know that Brazil’s official language is Portuguese. She isn’t Brazilian; she’s from London. So, she surely doesn’t know this about Brazil’s language.

18. Division – the converse of the composition fallacy; merely supposing that because a group as a whole has a characteristic, it follows that the individuals in the group have that characteristic.

     Example : R’s basketball team is the best in the league because it had an undefeated season. So R, who is their center, must be the best center in the league.

19. Equivocation – is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.

     Example : Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have the right to use our money.

20. Etymological – occurs whenever someone falsely assumes that the meaning of a word can be discovered from its etymology or origins.

     Example : The word “vise” comes from the Latin word “that which winds”, so it means anything that winds. Since the hurricane winds around its own eye, it is a vise.

21. Every and All – turns on error due to the order or scope of the quantifiers “every” and “all” and “any”. This is a version of the scope fallacy.

     Example : Every action of ours has some final end. So, there is some common end to all our actions.

22. Exaggeration – overstating or overemphasizing a point that is a crucial step in a piece of reasoning; this is a kind of error called Lack Of Proportion.

     Example : The rescue workers, doctors and various assistants are all heroes because, with the help of God, they managed to save all the people involved in that accident.

23. Far-Fetched Hypothesis – the fallacy of offering a bizarre (far-fetched) hypothesis as the correct explanation without first ruling out more mundane explanations.

     Example : Look at the mutilated cow in the field, and see that flattened grass. Aliens must have landed in a flying saucer and savaged the cow to learn more about the beings on our planet.

24. Hasty Generalization – making assumptions about a whole group from a range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small) .

     Example : I’ve met two people in Iraq so far, and they were both nice to me. So, all people I will meet in Iraq will be nice to me.

25. Jumping to Conclusions – drawing conclusions without taking the trouble to acqurie all the relevant evidence, provided there was sufficient time to assess the extra evidence, and that the effort to get the evidence isn’t prohibitive.

     Example : “This car is really cheap. I’ll buy it.” Before concluding that you should buy it, you should check its operating condition.

26. Lying – fallacy of reasoning that depends on intentionally saying something that is known to be false.

     Example : Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and John Kennedy were assassinated. They were U. S. presidents. Therefore, at least three U. S. presidents have been assassinated.

     TRUTH : Roosevelt was never assassinated.

27. Pathetic – is a mistaken belief due to attributing peculiarly human qualities to inanimate objects (but not to animals).

     Example : The storm is cruel. It always appears when I have an interview, it doesn’t want me to get to my interview on time.

28. Quibbling – complaining about a minor point and falsely believing that this complaint somehow undermines the main point.

     Example : I’ve found typographical errors in your poem, so the poem is neither inspired nor perceptive.

SOURCES :

-The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Bradley Dowden.

-The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Charter Change or ‘cha-cha’ as popularly known in the Philippines, refers to the legal process of either amending or revising the Philippine Constitution. The issue has been with us for years now. There has been numerous failed attempts in the past for a charter change, from the reign of Ramos, to Estrada, to Arroyo. Once again, the matter of charter change is being brought up by the highest levels of governance.

The constitution is supposed to be the supreme, fundamental law of the land. While the constitution is meant to be just a framework, our 1987 Constitution is the most lengthy and restrictive of all constitutions in the entire civilized world. It is understandable, though, because our Constitution was adopted after the fall of the corrupt dictatorship of Marcos. It was apparently made in reaction to our past, particularly to our experience during the martial law. It is in this premise that  many criticize it as backward-looking rather than forward-looking for the years to come. Yet, one could recite litanies of defects in our present 1987 Constitution from the structure of government to restrictions on foreign investments that hinders the growth of our economy.

An essential characteristic of a good constitution is that it must be flexible enough to be able to respond to the changing needs of time. I believe that now is the time for us to really analyze the pros and cons of charter change and not be misled by the rhetorics of naysayers. Personally, I am in favor of the charter change, not just for the change in the structure of government, but most importantly, for economic reforms.

First, on the issue of the change in the structure of government. Though a change in the system would not ensure that it would be free from corruption in various levels of government, still it would be advantageous to shift from Presidential-Bicameral to Parliamentary-Unicameral form of government. Studies show that the parliamentary systems is inherently more efficient because it is more streamlined and more flexible than the presidential system. Such system, with its separation of powers is prone to gridlock in the three branches of government while parliamentary form is cheaper, more efficient, more flexible and more accountable.

More importantly, changing the present constitution by liberalizing the restrictive economic provisions and allowing entry of foreign capitals would be beneficial to majority of the Filipinos. In Singapore, it was the aggressive policy of attracting foreign investments  by  allowing 100% ownership of local businesses by foreigner that got them up from Third World to First World.

Through this, more jobs will be created for Filipinos and wages will increase because of competition. This will eventually improve the quality of life for Filipinos living in their country and there will be less need to find jobs overseas.

Therefore, it would be more advantageous to have ‘cha-cha’  for obvious reasons. We Filipinos should be more analytical and open-minded not to be swayed by the malicious argument of those with vested interests in keeping the status quo. On the other hand, we Filipinos should also be more vigilant in the political process of changing our Constitution and see to it that it is done the right way and for the right reasons, definitely not to serve the selfish motives of those in the administration.

     Presidential debates have been a central part of the democratic political process since the earliest days of American democracy. These debates are not only fascinating to look into, but more importantly, it relays information to voters about important issues and where each candidate stands.

     Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and Democrat Sen. Barack Obama faced off at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York in their last debate before Election Day.

     Did their debate meet the academic standards for arguments?

     In a way, yes. Debating is a formal method of interactive and position representational arguments. In formal debating contests, such as presidential debates, there are rules enabling the candidates to discuss and decide on differences with regard to particular issues.

     In the Obama-McCain debate, it was divided into nine-minute segments, where the moderator begins each segment with a question and give the candidates two minutes each to respond. Then, it follows the five-minute discussion period.

     There are various forms of debates but the parliamentary form is the most dominant form of competitive academic debating. In a way, the presidential debate does not fall strictly within the standards of any of these forms. Instead, as Prof. Zompetti of Illinois State University calls it, it is more of a confrontational discussion that combines elements of both value and policy debating, but the format itself is anything unlike competitive debaters actually do at tournaments.

     In essence, though, the said debate complies with the basic requirements of an argument which are the Claim, Ground and Warrant. Sometimes, they even used Qualifiers. For example, Sen. McCain expressed his view that he is anti-abortion except when it poses a risk to the life and health of the mother.

     There was only one speaker on each side, John McCain versus Barack Obama. The motion was “Resolved – This house supports me for President of the United States.” The format was a sit-down presidential debate, moderated by journalist Bob Schieffer. There were adjudicators and the winner was decided on the basis of the number of points obtained.

     All in all, the debate went fairly well eventhough some Americans criticized the debaters as disjointed, disorganized, underdeveloped, and frustrating to watch. Though I must agree that on some parts, the debaters either repeated answers they have already said or use their time as an opportunity to attack each other.