Dehumanization, although a concrete historical fact, is not a given destiny but the result

of a possible unjust order that engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn
dehumanizes the oppressed
To this most august house, most honorable panel of adjudicators, worthy opponents, codebaters, spectators, a pleasant morning to everyone.
To reiterate the motion: Resolve that federalism be implemented in the Philippines
Standing on the negative, our house believes that such act would only lead to the
possible unjust order that oppresses not just the sovereignty of the country but also its
people.
REBUT.
With all that being said, I have 2 points here to prove the non-practicability of the motion
and later on I will present to you our counter mechanism.
Going on to my points.
1. The Federal system itself provides a jeopardous scheme.
2. The due process involved in fortification is more practicable than its
reformation to federalism.
On to my first point,
THE FEDERAL SYSTEM ITSELF PROVIDES A JEOPARDOUS SCHEME.
Federalism as per defined involve a government system wherein sovereignty is
constitutionally shared between a central governing authority and constituent political
units which in this case would be the states theyre trying to propose.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the scheme itself is a walking time bomb ready to
explode at any second it has been set.
Overlapping work, redundancy and confusion. Separating the functions of the
national government and the regional government will result to duplicity of function
Dr Amado P. Mendoza of the UP Pol Sci Department actually addressed the confusion it
will bring in his Journal stating that. The Congress and the Executive Branch will
often have divergent interests, particularly when controlled by different parties. The
myriad agencies of the federal government itself will also interact with one another
according to logics of cooperation, as well as competition but The political layer of the
bureaucracy may have different priorities from the civil service. It provides a
redundant and overlapping system that provides jeopardy especially to conflicting

parties with a common duty. This multiplicity is part of what gives federalism its
controversial character. it also enables the federal government to take advantage of
federalism in numerous ways. And thus, even if no single perspective can be attributed
to the federal government, we can still think in general terms about how a Chaotic
center might approach the governments contained within it.
The same goes with Jurisdiction issues. Not everything is as clear as we would like
them to be in the law. Oftentimes, there are ambiguities. This is especially true in
defining jurisdiction. When does the reach of the regional government end and the
national government begin? A succinct example is the squabble of the DILG and Mayor
Alfred Romualdez during the disaster relief operations following Typhoon Yolanda. Such
will be a common scenario under a federal government.
Think about it, this dual sovereignty in the Philippines will have conflicting minds in its
roster, especially when it comes to the implementation of national and state powers.
How about when different political parties are involved? Are they proposing a political
system or a national palengke heeding to the rush of morning call.
Moving on to my next argument.
THE DUE PROCESS INVOLVED IN FORTICATION IS HIGHLY MORE
PRACTICABLE THAN THE SYSTEMs REFORMATION TO FEDERALISM.
Cost, timeframe, due process, these are just some of the reasons for my argument. The
mere fact of a constitutional convention and assembly establishes a drastic change and
expenses in all sectors of the government which the other side have failed to provide to
us.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the affirmative side presented the current flaws of the system.
Flaws that are mere scratch marks to the political scheme of our country today which
leads us to provide the theme line that the system simply needs FORTIFICATION AND
NOT REFORMATION.