THIRD NEGATIVE SPEAKER

Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat. It is the duty of the one who alleges to
prove what he says, not of the one who denies it.
Your Excellencies, fellow students, ladies and gentlemen, Good Morning!
It is a general fair play in a debate that the burden of proof always remains on the
affirmative side. Thus, the affirmative side must establish concrete, clear and convincing pieces
of evidence in order to win the case. Your Honors, in this humble debate the affirmative failed to
do so, for it is the negative which clearly and substantially accomplished its duty.
Ladies and gentlemen, it may seem that the affirmative provides arguments which
appear to be true but upon examination, the negative proved that those arguments are false,
hence committed informal fallacies. Let the negative address these errors committed by the
affirmative. First.
Allow the negative side to reiterate its points
1st , Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that Philippines is a
republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
them. Your Honors, it is clear that the proposal of the affirmative is undemocratic and antiRepublican.
2nd , the proposal of the affirmative violates Article III Section 1 of the Constitution which
provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law. The Equal Protection Clause
means that all persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, as enunciated in the
leading case of Quinto vs. COMELEC.
3rd, affirmatives proposal is violative of the valid classification, as enunciated in People
of the Philippines vs Cayat, for the fact that the four requisites of valid classification are not met.
Thus, the equal protection clause shall apply.
4th , it is contrary to Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states
that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives. Hence, the Philippines must act in accordance with this provision
following the Doctrine of Pacta sunt servanda or agreement must be kept.
5th , the proposal of the affirmative violates the rule of majority in relation to the rights of
minority.
6th , the leading case of Ashby vs. White which provides that the right of voting is a thing
of the highest importance that it is a great injury to deprive the voter of it and Article V Section 1
of the Constitution are clear manifestation that the right to suffrage is a duty and a political right.
Last, Article 13 Section 1 of the Constitution states that the Congress shall give highest
priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people... and
remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common
good. Thus, the proposal of the affirmative is circumvention to social justice.

Your Honors, ladies and gentlemen, why do we need to amend the Constitution to the
extent that only taxpayers can vote if in the first place it violates the very essence of democracy
and republicanism of the Philippines? Where is the equal protection of the law in such proposal?
The negative side provided substantial statement of facts supporting the truth that the proposal
of the affirmative is not necessary, not beneficial and not practicable.
We, standing at the negative side strongly submit, Let us not desecrate the Constitution,
Let us not allow that only taxpayers can vote.