NEUTRALITY

A state is said to be neutral if it does not take part, directly or indirectly in a war between two other states. If recognized by the belligerents, this condition gives rise to rights and obligations between them and the neutral state. The general accepted concept of neutrality is absolute or perfect neutrality which imports that the third state does not take sides in any way whatsoever when other states are at war. However, strict adherence to this view has become hardly practicable. The techniques of modern warfare and advances in international commerce have involved third states in the hostilities often against their will. Morever, the compulsions of present-day international politics make it difficult for nations to maintain a strictly impartial attitude in the face of conflicts that, although they may not be actually parties thereto will unavoidably affect their own future and security. No less significant are the provisions of the UN Charter which obligate member states to participate in enforcement action in cases of actual threat to or breach of the peace of the world.

Laws of Neutrality

Rules on neutrality are found in the customary laws of nations and such conventions as the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and The Hague Conventions of 1907.

The Hague Convention

CHAPTER I The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers

Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to: (a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea; (b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory. It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

Art. 6. The responsibility of a neutral Power is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents.

Art. 7. A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

Art. 8. A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals.

Art. 9. Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents. A neutral Power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus.

Art. 10. The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act.

CHAPTER II Belligerents Interned and Wounded Tended in Neutral Territory

Art. 11. A neutral Power which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war. It may keep them in camps and even confine them in fortresses or in places set apart for this purpose. It shall decide whether officers can be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory without permission.

Art. 12. In the absence of a special convention to the contrary, the neutral Power shall supply the interned with the food, clothing, and relief required by humanity. At the conclusion of peace the expenses caused by the internment shall be made good.

Art. 13. A neutral Power which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty. If it allows them to remain in its territory it may assign them a place of residence. The same rule applies to prisoners of war brought by troops taking refuge in the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 14. A neutral Power may authorize the passage over its territory of the sick and wounded belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the trains bringing them shall carry neither personnel nor war material. In such a case, the neutral Power is bound to take whatever measures of safety and control are necessary for the purpose. The sick or wounded brought under these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents, and belonging to the hostile party, must be guarded by the neutral Power so as to ensure their not taking part again in the military operations. The same duty shall devolve on the neutral State with regard to wounded or sick of the other army who may be committed to its care.

Art. 15. The Geneva Convention applies to sick and wounded interned in neutral territory.

Visit and Search

Belligerent warships and aircraft have the right to visit and search neutral merchant vessels on the high seas for the purpose of determining whether they are in any way connected with the hostilities. These vessels may be captured as prize if they are engaged in hostile activities, if they resist visit and search or if there is reasonable suspicion that they are liable to confiscation. Prize is not confiscated summarily but must be brought to a prize court for adjudication. A prize court is a tribunal established by the belligerent under its own laws in its territory of its allies and applies rules of international law in the absence of special municipal legislation. The Declaration of Paris of 1856 set rules on the treatment of sea-borne goods:

1. Privateering is, and remains, abolished;
2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war;
3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag;
4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

Contraband- goods which although neutral property may be seized by the belligerent because they are useful for war and are bound for hostile destination. Absolute are necessarily useful for war under all circumstances like rifles and ammunition, whereas conditional contraband like food and clothes have both civilian and military purposes. Absolute contraband are subject to seizure so long as they are bound for enemy or enemy-held territory but conditional contraband may be seized only when it can be shown that they are destined for the armed forces or the authorities of the belligerent government.

Doctrine of Ultimate Consumption- goods intended for civilian use which may ultimately find their way to and be consumed by the belligerent forces are also liable to seizure on the way.

Doctrine of Infection-if the contraband are shipped together with innocent goods belonging to the same owner, the latter may also be confiscated.

Doctrine of Ultimate Destination- the liability of the contraband to capture is determined not by their ostensible but by their real destination.

Blockade- hostile operation by means of which the vessels and aircraft of one belligerent prevent all other vessels, including those of neutral states from entering or leaving the ports or coasts of the other belligerent, the purpose being to shut off the place from international commerce and communication with other states.

Termination of Neutrality- a) when the neutral state itself joins the war b) upon conclusion of peace.

AKBAYAN VS AQUINO

Facts: Petitioners seek to obtain from respondents the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) including the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and annexes thereto. The JPEPA, which will be the first bilateral free trade agreement to be entered into by the Philippines with another country in the event the Senate grants its consent to it, covers a broad range of topics which includes trade in goods, rules of origin, customs procedures, paperless trading, trade in services, investment, intellectual property rights, government procurement, movement of natural persons, cooperation, competition policy, mutual recognition, dispute avoidance and settlement, improvement of the business environment, and general and final provisions.

Issues:

a. Whether or not the claim of the petitioners is covered by the right to information.
b. Whether the executive privilege claimed by the respondents applies only at certain stages of the negotiation process.
c. Whether there is sufficient public interest to overcome the claim of privilege.
d. Whether the Respondents’ failed to claim executive privilege on time.

Ruling:

Supreme Court dismissed the petition, on the following reasons:

1. To be covered by the right to information, the information sought must meet the threshold requirement that it be a matter of public concern.

In determining whether or not a particular information is of public concern there is no rigid test which can be applied. ‘Public concern’ like ‘public interest’ is a term that eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine on a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the public.

From the nature of the JPEPA as an international trade agreement, it is evident that the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiations towards its execution are matters of public concern. This, respondents do not dispute. They only claim that diplomatic negotiations are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege, thus constituting an exception to the right to information and the policy of full public disclosure.

Thus, the Court holds that, in determining whether an information is covered by the right to information, a specific “showing of need” for such information is not a relevant consideration, but only whether the same is a matter of public concern. When, however, the government has claimed executive privilege, and it has established that the information is indeed covered by the same, then the party demanding it, if it is to overcome the privilege, must show that that the information is vital, not simply for the satisfaction of its curiosity, but for its ability to effectively and reasonably participate in social, political, and economic decision-making.

2. Supreme Court stated that the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order.

3. The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege and can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need. This need determination is to be made flexibly on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis. "[E]ach time [the deliberative process privilege] is asserted the district court must undertake a fresh balancing of the competing interests," taking into account factors such as "the relevance of the evidence," "the availability of other evidence," "the seriousness of the litigation," "the role of the government," and the "possibility of future timidity by government employees.

In the case at hand, Petitioners have failed to present the strong and “sufficient showing of need”. The arguments they proffer to establish their entitlement to the subject documents fall short of this standard stated in the decided cases.

There is no dispute that the information subject of this case is a matter of public concern. The Court has earlier concluded that it is a matter of public concern, not on the basis of any specific need shown by petitioners, but from the very nature of the JPEPA as an international trade agreement.

Further, the text of the JPEPA having been published, petitioners have failed to convince this Court that they will not be able to meaningfully exercise their right to participate in decision-making unless the initial offers are also published.

4. When the respondents invoked the privilege for the first time only in their Comment to the present petition does not mean that the claim of privilege should not be credited.

Respondents’ failure to claim the privilege during the House Committee hearings may not, however, be construed as a waiver thereof by the Executive branch. What respondents received from the House Committee and petitioner-Congressman Aguja were mere requests for information. The House Committee refrained from pursuing its earlier resolution to issue a subpoena duces tecum on account of then Speaker Jose de Venecia’s alleged request to Committee Chairperson Congressman Teves to hold the same in abeyance.

While it is a salutary and noble practice for Congress to refrain from issuing subpoenas to executive officials – out of respect for their office – until resort to it becomes necessary, the fact remains that such requests are not a compulsory process. Being mere requests, they do not strictly call for an assertion of executive privilege.

DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT SERVICE VS KOLONWEL TRADING

Facts: Before the Court are these consolidated three (3) petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, to nullify and set aside the Order dated December 4, 2006 of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, in SP Civil Case No. 06-116010, a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition thereat commenced by herein respondent Kolonwel Trading (Kolonwel for short) against the Department of Budget and Management Procurement Service (DBM-PS), et al. At the core of the controversy are the bidding and the eventual contract awards for the supply and delivery of some 17.5 million copies of Makabayan (social studies) textbooks and teachers manuals, a project of the Department of Education (DepEd). The contract was awarded to several publishers for the different textbooks and Kolonwel was disqualified for which it appealed to the Inter-Agency Bids and Awards Committee but was denied. Kolonwel filed with the RTC of Manila a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Docketed as SP Civil Case No. 06-116010, and raffled to Branch 18 of the court, the petition sought to nullify IABAC Res. Nos. 001-2006 and 001-2006-A and to set aside the contract awards in favor of other publishers. Other publishers filed a motion to dismiss Kolonwel’s petition on several grounds, among them want of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action, inter alia alleging that the latter had pursued judicial relief without first complying with the protest procedure prescribed by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184, otherwise known as the “Government Procurement Reform Act.”.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in assuming jurisdiction over the case despite Kolonwel’s failure to observe the protest mechanism provided under Sec. 55, Sec. 57 and 58 of the Government Procurement Reform Act because it is a foreign funded project.

Ruling: The Court is unable to lend concurrence to the trial court’s and respondent’s positions on the interplay of the protest and jurisdictional issues. As may be noted, that Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184 sets three (3) requirements that must be met by the party desiring to protest the decision of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC). These are: 1) the protest must be in writing, in the form of a verified position paper; 2) the protest must be submitted to the head of the procuring entity; and 3) the payment of a non-refundable protest fee. The jurisdictional caveat that authorizes courts to assume or, inversely, precludes courts from assuming, jurisdiction over suits assailing the BAC’s decisions is in turn found in the succeeding Section 58 which provides that the courts would have jurisdiction over such suits only if the protest procedure has already been completed. Considering that the respondent’s petition in RTC Manila was actually filed in violation of the protest process set forth in Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184, that court could not have lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. In fact, Section 58, supra, of R.A. No. 9184 emphatically states that cases filed in violation of the protest process therein provided “shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” The question as to whether or not foreign loan agreements with international financial institutions, such as Loan No. 7118-PH, partake of an executive or international agreement within the purview of the Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184, has been answered by the Court in the affirmative in Abaya, supra. Significantly, Abaya declared that the RP-JBIC loan agreement was to be of governing application over the CP I project and that the JBIC Procurement Guidelines, as stipulated in the loan agreement, shall primarily govern the procurement of goods necessary to implement the main project. WHEREFORE, the instant consolidated petitions are GRANTED and the assailed Order dated December 4, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in its SP Case No. 06-116010 is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.

PIMENTEL VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Facts: This is a petition for mandamus filed by petitioners to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court which shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern and shall be complementary to the criminal jurisdictions. The Statute was opened for signature by all states in Rome on July 17, 1998 and had remained open for signature until December 31, 2000 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Philippines signed the Statute on December 28, 2000 through Charge d’ Affairs Enrique A. Manalo of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations. Its provisions, however, require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states. Petitioners filed the instant petition to compel the respondents — the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs — to transmit the signed text of the treaty to the Senate of the Philippines for ratification. It is the theory of the petitioners that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate. Hence, 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. Moreover, petitioners submit that the Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute under treaty law and customary international law. Petitioners invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties enjoining the states to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when they have signed the treaty prior to ratification unless they have made their intention clear not to become parties to the treaty.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have a ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by a member of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations even without the signature of the President.

2. Whether or not the power to ratify a treaty belongs to the Senate according to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Ruling:

1. The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As the 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 the 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 a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” The 1935 and the 1973 Constitution also required the concurrence by the legislature to the treaties entered into by the executive. Section 10 (7), Article VII of the 1935 Constitution provided:

Sec. 10. (7) The President shall have the power, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate, to make treaties xxx.

Section 14 (1) Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution stated:

Sec. 14. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, no treaty shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by a majority of all the Members of the Batasang Pambansa.

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. By requiring the concurrence of the legislature in the treaties entered into by the President, the Constitution ensures a healthy system of checks and balance necessary in the nation’s pursuit of political maturity and growth.

2. The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. Petitioners’ arguments equate the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative with ratification. It should be underscored that the signing of the treaty and the ratification are two separate and distinct steps in the treaty-making process. As earlier discussed, the signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of the good faith of the parties. It is usually performed by the state’s authorized representative in the diplomatic mission. Ratification, on the other hand, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representative. It is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government. It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition was DISMISSED.

TAÑADA VS ANGARA

Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement.

The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.

Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.

Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement.

Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.

Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the “concept of sovereignty as autolimitation.” What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.
Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

FALLACIES

Classifications:

v Rhetorical Fallacies/ Hermeneutic Fallacies- errors of understanding or interpretation

o Incorrect Obversion-arises when changing the original proposition from affirmative to negative or vise versa, the meaning of the proposition is changed.

o Incorrect Conversion-arises when in the transposition of the subject and the predicate, the meaning of the original proposition is changed.

o Fallacy of accent- is committed when the meaning of a proposition is misinterpreted on account of a misplaced accent or emphasis on a term.

o Fallacy of amphibology-arises on an account of a faulty grammatical construction of the sentence which gives rise to miscomprehension.

v Logical Fallacies- errors in inferring or reason

o Formal fallacies- those arise from the violations of the rules of syllogism.

Formal Fallacies in Categorical Syllogism

1. Fallacy of four terms- this is committed when more than three terms are used in syllogism

2. Fallacy of undistributed middle- this is committed when the rule of syllogism, which says that the middle term must be distributed at least once, is violated

3. Fallacy of illicit major- arises when the major term is distributed in the conclusion when it was not distributed in the major premise.

4. Fallacy of illicit minor- arises when there is a violation of the rule that the minor term should not be distributed in the conclusion when it was not distributed in the minor premise.

5. Fallacy of negative premise- when the premises are both negative

6. Fallacy of particular premise- when two premises of the syllogism are both particular.

Formal Fallacies in Disjunctive Syllogism

1. Alternatives not mutually exclusive- arises when the use of one of the alternatives does not preclude the use of the other

2. Possibilities not exhaustive- arises when the possibilities used in the predicate of the disjunctive major premise are not exhaustive

Formal Fallacies in Hypothetical Syllogism

1. Fallacy of denying the antecedent- when the minor premise denies the antecedent of the major premise.

2. Fallacy of affirming the consequent- when the minor premise affirms the consequent

v Material Fallacies- arise from the confusion in the connotation or denotation of the terms used or from a faulty assumption of facts.

o Fallacies of equivocation- arise from the assumption that what is true of a term in one sense is also true of the same term used in another sense.

o Fallacies of quantity-arise when we assert that what is true of a whole taken collectively is true of a part taken individually and vice versa.

o Fallacies of quality- are those that arise from the confusion in the attributes connoted by terms used in the proposition.

o Fallacies of presumption- arise when the disputant assumes, without presenting evidence or argument, the truth of the conclusion which it is his duty to prove.

§ Begging the question- arguer assumes the truth of the proposition

§ Fallacy of ignorantio elenchi- irrelevant conclusion

§ Fallacy of complex question- debater asks a question that implies the truth of an assumption

§ Fallacy of non sequitar- debater draws a conclusion from a premise without showing a valid connection between the assumed or known truth.

Reference:
The Art of Argumentation and Debate by Africa

DOES THE 3RD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE BETWEEN McCAIN AND OBAMA MEET THE ACADEMIC STANDARDS OF ARGUMENT?

The 3^rd Presidential debate between McCain and Obama was 90 minutes long with Bob Schieffer as moderator. It was divided into 9 minute segments with the subject of domestic policy. Each segment had a question thrown by Mr. Schieffer and each candidate was given 2 minutes to respond then a discussion ensued. Candidates were given the opportunity to ask each other follow up questions and if they didn’t then Mr. Schieffer would be the one to ask. Although the main proposition was Domestic Policy, every segment had questions about taxes, budget allocation and deficit, the negativity and effect of each other’s campaigns and the qualifications of each other’s running mate to become president. The candidates defended their plan of action and asked questions to each other. Each candidate presented points in his proposals on why his were better than the other one. The World Rules on Debate gave standards to be followed in a debate and also used these standards to judge a debate.

Introduction

a) The format- with two teams and a moderator

b) The motion- should not be ambiguously worded

c) Preparation

d) Timing of the Speeches- there’s a length of time required to deliver the speeches

e) Points of Information- debaters ask questions to each other for clarification

f) The adjudication

How the Debate will be judged:

DEFINITIONS

a) The definition should state the issue or issues for debate arising out of the motion which require interpretation

b) Challenging the definition

c) Assessing the definitional challenge

MATTER

a) Matter is the content of the speech. It is the argument the debater uses to further his or her case or persuade the audience. It includes arguments, reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other materials that attempt to further his or her case. It should be relevant, logical and consistent.

b) Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style or structure a member uses to further his case or persuade his audience.

c) Elements of style includes eye contact, voice modulation, hand gestures, language.

Basing on the criterion mentioned above, the 3^rd debate between Obama and McCain followed the academic standards for arguments. It is inescapable that the candidates will be judged and not the debate per se. The future of a wounded nation depended on the discourse between two opposing gentlemen, one, a young and dynamic lad holding a lot of promise and the other, a war hero with political experience as his advantage but is relatively old compared to the other one. America is in its trying times and it is knee deep in problems and controversies with its distress felt by the rest of the world. Americans needed a Chief Executive to deliver them out of the troublesome economy they are in. That was the main content of the debate. Economic policies of both McCain and Obama were of paramount concern of the entire debate. Although the debate also touched on different other aspects like their running mates and their ability to lead if by some circumstance either one could not push through with the presidency. In the end, if I had to chose, in my opinion, Senator Obama’s proposals and policies where the ones easily understandable to me who’s a non American and who cannot relate to issues like tax credits to individuals (that certainly doesn’t happen here). He was calmer more dignified and was more eloquent.

SHOULD THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION BE CHANGED OR NOT?

In recent times, there have been many talks of changing the constitution. These talks have been widely heard especially now that key officials of the country are ending their terms in a couple of years including the highest official of the land, the President. It is in this regard that many people believe is the main reason why a clamor for charter change is all over the news again. For me, the 1987 Constitution should not be changed. Our present Constitution is about 20 years old. If we study the history and the historical implications of our Constitution, we will learn that our Constitution had undergone modifications over time purposely in sync with a significant milestone and event in our nation’s history. It started with the declaration of our independence from the 300 plus years of Spanish authoritarian rule. Emilio Aguinaldo became president and the Malolos Constitution was born, the first democratic Constitution in Asia. This was a result of a bloody Philippine Revolution that came about because of the uproar the Filipinos made struggling to free themselves in an abusive, corrupt and totalitarian Spanish regime. However, this was short lived. The Americans came. We were under a new sovereign again and inevitably, the Americans overhauled our government. They ruled our country for a period of time and then handed the reigns over to the Filipinos establishing the Commonwealth government with Manuel L. Quezon as the President. Around this time in 1935, a new Philippine Constitution was ratified and came into effect. We gained our independence from the Americans in 1946 after World War II ended. The 1935 Constitution remained untouched until 1973 following widespread unrest nationwide under the leadership of President Ferdinand Marcos who declared martial law a year earlier. This marked another turning point in our nation’s history. Under his dictatorship, there was massive violence, exploitation, human rights violations and taking over of public utility companies. President Marcos controlled the legislation and the judiciary and some of the provisions in the 1973 Constitution made sure that he did. The Filipinos again revolted and a new government was established. President Corazon Aquino became the leader and the Freedom Constitution was ratified overwhelmingly by the people in 1987. This is now our present Constitution. It is a result of a transformation of the kind of government under a new leadership, the beginning of peace and stability in our society and economy. Therefore, modifications to our Constitution are consequences of a major shift of our government, social reforms and a new page in the Philippine history. There is no need for us to change the 1987 Constitution as we are not currently experiencing major turning points that will affect greatly the social and political make up of our government and society. Our 1987 Constitution was drafted by the framers having in their minds the needs of the Filipino people to be rightfully included in the Constitution for the improvement of our lives whether they would be political, social, economical and even environmental. The Constitution therefore encompasses almost everything important to the lives of the people living in the Philippines. What we actually need right now is a new administration that will uphold the integrity of the Constitution and its ideals and not a new Constitution.

ARGUMENTATION

Definitions

• It is defined as the art of influencing others, through the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or act as we wish them to believe or act. It is the process of influencing the belief or behavior of a hearer or reader through spoken or written speech by supplying him with reasons and stirring his feelings.
• Argumentation is a verbal or written, social and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable judge of the acceptability or inacceptability of a standpoint by advancing a certain constellation of propositions which is designed to justify or refute the standpoint.
• Argumentation theory, or argumentation, embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings.

Methods and Approaches

• Conviction- appeals to reason, to create belief or intellectual agreement. It is that phase of argumentation whereby the arguer directs his words to the reasoning faculty of man.
• Persuasion- appeals to the emotion, feelings and to the will. It is the phase of argumentation whereby the disputant directs his words to the heart, to the feelings, to the sentiments, to the emotions.

Aims/Objectives/Components

• The study of argumentation concentrates on the analysis, evaluation and presentation of the 'point of departure' and the 'organization' of argumentation. The point of departure consists of all explicit and implicit premises and assumptions that are taken as the starting point in argumentation. The organization of the argumentation comprises the way in which the various reasons are connected with each other and the standpoint at issue to justify or refute this standpoint. Both in the study of the point of departure and in that of the organization of argumentation logical and pragmatic considerations play a part.

• The philosophical component of the study of argumentation involves reflection on the ideal of reasonableness underlying the theorizing about argumentation; the outcome of this reflection is pertinent to the question of when argumentation may be considered sound or not sound.
• Toulmin’s Model:

Ø The Claim-Most general statement, the umbrella statement that all other parts have to fall under. The main point of the argument which can be express or implied.

Ø Data- provides the evidence, opinions, reasoning, examples, and factual information about a claim

Ø Warrants - are assumptions, general principles, conventions of specific disciplines, widely held values, commonly accepted beliefs, and appeals to human motives. Most warrants are not stated in an argument.

Ø Backing - is audience specific and it bridges the gap between the author's warrant and the audience's opinion.

Ø Rebuttals - establish what is wrong, invalid, or unacceptable about an argument and they may present counter arguments or new arguments that represent different points of view.

Ø Qualifiers - are words throughout the argument that quantify the argument. Some examples include: always, never, is, are, all, none, and absolutely, always and never change to sometimes, is and are change to may be or might, all changes to many or some, none changes to a few, and absolutely changes to probably or possibly.

References:

• The Art of Argumentation and Debate by Africa
• http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/toul.html
• Definition of Argumentation, Interpretation, Rhetoric
• Wikipedia