Do you agree that Philippines should amend or revise the 1987 Constitution?

Confucius, China’s most famous teacher, philosopher and political theorist in 551-479 BC quotes that “It is only the wisest and the stupidest that cannot change.” Hence, “the only thing that is constant is change”.

The change of the Constitution may not be the wisest option to spur progress, a treadmill to the nation seeking to liberate itself from the shackles of obsolete rules no longer conformable to the country’s needs and aspiration, yet resistance from it would be the stupidest thing one can do to his country.

However, some Filipinos viewed instinctively that changing of the Philippine Constitution is a threat or a predicament rather than a challenge to be embraced. Undeniably, laymen and antagonists presumed, that its necessity is dictated merely from the whims, caprices, passing fancies, temporary passions or occasional infatuations of the people with ideas or personalities and purposely to suit political expediency, personal ambitions or ill-advised agitation thus, heedlessly precluding without thorough evaluation of its beneficiality and practicability and whether or not if favors only to selected members of the society and deliberately its effects to the nation as a whole.

Noticeably, the 1987 Constitution had been in effect for 20 years and no amendments or changes had been introduced to improve it. Therefore, it is just about time to amend or revise the charter. Though, it’s true that the people’s traumatic experience of Martial Law and the fear of Marcos’ ghost casting doubts on the proposal to change the constitution, yet this can be eradicated if and only if the Filipino people will be educated on the pros and cons of every proposed amendment or provision. To ensure further the authenticity of the intention of the change, there should be fair, honest and objective information dissemination. On the other hand, amendments and revision of the charter should be done in a most appropriate manner which is in accordance with Art. XV11 of the 1987 Constitution.

Scrutinizing the strengths and the weaknesses of each proposal shall be useful in defeating the evils of the said proposal while promoting the good side of it. Let’s take into account, the most controversial shift from bicameral – presidential form of government to unicameral – parliamentary form of government. One of its advantages is the decentralization of power of which the local government units shall be given the powers to ensure efficient delivery of basic services. However, some feared that if this will have happen, there will be a possibility of the rebirth of private armies since those politicians has the tendency to stay in power by all means. (This was experienced before in some regions.)

By properly laying down its advantages we can more likely aimed to impede its disadvantages through implementing prohibiting laws or statutes or strengthening existing statutes to prevent the occurrence of such weaknesses. Since, we are being pre-empted on the possible outcome, then we can probably formulate solutions to it. Oftentimes, we stare our problem for too long lest we forget to think of the solutions

Do the 3^rd Presidential Debate of Obama and McCain meet the academic standards for arguments? Why or why not?

Definitely, the 3^rd U.S. Presidential Debate is dissimilar from academic debates since the latter essentially requires speed. The key is to make as many arguments and present as much evidence to back them up as possible, before the clock runs out. Then you go down, point by point, and try to refute as many of your opponent’s arguments as you can. A judge assigns points to each side on that basis. According to Adrienne Christiansen, it is really an assessment of the kinds of evidence and arguments that are brought forward. ¹

Whereas academic debates are a battle of ideas, presidential debates are a battle between two individuals. “They’re not trying to convince their opponent,” said Christiansen, “They’re not trying to disprove their opponent. They’re simply trying to take their position, and make it look interesting and clever and insightful to the moderator and to the television audience.” ²

However, in reference to the question --- technically, the essential requisites of arguments and academic standards for arguments were undoubtedly met despite of negligible violations made by the participants at the focal point of the debate (such as ignoring the time allocation for each participant per question as John McCain did most of the time), likewise, taking into account that all debates are forms of argumentation. ³

The folowing are the reasons and instances affirming my above-contention: Firstly, at the outset of the 3^rd Presidential debate the host-moderator laid down rules in presenting their arguments and evidences thus making it a formal controversy not a mere verbal wrangling and evidently making it an art, of which argumentation is being referred.⁴ Secondly, in most instances, the candidates publicized their propositions by directing their words to the reasoning faculty and through appealing to emotions, to the feelings, to the will of American people, which are precisely the methods of approach in the work of argumentation. Lastly, though the issues or propositions were in a form a question raised by the moderator at certain point of time, the participants were able to manifest their claims duly supported with data or grounds and by presenting or citing concrete evidence, such as when Barak Obama cited his associates to warrant his claim against the alleged dishonorable, disrespectful campaign towards John McCain. Therefore, the key components of an argument were completely present in this debate thus making this debate in conformity with the academic standards for arguments.

Most importantly, even though presidential debates lack the logical rigor of an academic debate, they’re still extremely valuable part of the election season – one of the few times voters can evaluate the two candidates side-by-side.

Moreover, presidential debates aimed at helping people to decide who they want to vote for in the presidential election. Debating helps people choose which candidate to vote for by giving information on what candidates with logical facts, rather than physical appearance. This is extremely structured so that the candidates get equal representation. With this in mind, voters will base their vote on how well candidate represents their point of view. This does not necessarily lead to the best candidate being elected, but it does provide information.

References:

1] Adrienne Christiansen , was the head debate coach at the University of Minnesota. Professor at St. Paul’s Macalester College, and studies political rhetoric.

2] –ditto-

3]A. Craig Baird, Pub. Discussion and Debate p. 8

4] Africa, The Art of Argumentation and Debate p. 6