CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH (NEGATIVE-PRACTICABILITY)
Ladies and Gentlemen, Good afternoon. Lovely to see you all here today. Let me begin by defining what Political dynasty is according to the section 3 of the senate bill no. 2649 since it is stated in the constitution itself to have a law that clearly define this.
"Political Dynasty" - shall exist when a person who is the spouse of an incumbent elective official or relative within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of an incumbent elective official holds or runs for an elective office simultaneously with the incumbent elective official within the same province or occupies the same office immediately after the term of office of the incumbent elective official. It shall also be deemed to exist where two (2) or more persons who are spouses or are related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity run simultaneously for elective public office within the same province, even if neither is so related to an incumbent elective official.
It has been clearly stated in our very own constitution that Political dynasties should be prohibited to guarantee equal access of opportunities for the people of the Philippines to run for a public office. But is the abolition of such phenomenon in our political environment practical? As in does this political dynasty so wrong that no trace of goodness was left in it whereas its complete eradication will help improve the current moral, social, economic and political status in our country?
Nonetheless, both the Senate and the House have already proposed anti-dynasty bills. Senator Miriam Santiago filed Senate Bill No 2649 in 2011, while three anti-dynasty bills in the House which are house bills no. 172, 837, and 2911 were consolidated into House Bills No. 3587. The Senate Bill is more restrictive, allowing only one member of the family to hold office at any given time, while the House Bill—deemed more tolerant—sets the limitation at two family members.
Let me discuss in three points with why the arguments used in regards to the abolition of political dynasties are apparently wrong in a practical sense.
As for my first point, political dynasties do not prohibit people to vote rightly and run for a public office they think they deserve. Such rights were still freely being exercised by people in the localities too since people in the positions still encounter political rivals. The non-member of political dynasty’s disadvantage is only being in a political party that lacked the funding that a member of a political dynasty has.
On my second point, let us first define what law is? According to http://judiciallearningcenter.org/ "laws are rules that bind all people living in a community. Laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the government itself.”
Is there really an evidence of people being abused? Were the people clearly oppressed? According to an empirical study done from National Statistical Coordination Board, the existence of political dynasty is higher in those areas that have severe poverty but such existence does not necessarily affect poverty. It means that political dynasty does not create poverty. Thus, it is not fair to correlate such variables without sufficient basis when the facts are clearly stating that these two are completely neutral to each other.
I do not think the flaw is in those people in political dynasties but is actually in the electoral process in our country and to us, the people itself because we continue to be drawn to the attractions of familiar names, to the power and glamour these names conjure in lieu of serious debates about substantive issues.
Lastly, abolition of political dynasties may turn to be detrimental for our government. They have been helping on the proper management of our government. They have been the pillars of support in nation building when it almost collapsed during the past revolutions that occurred in the past decades and our whole country may completely breakdown if they are to be eradicated in the Philippine government may it be in the local or national sense.
Therefore, the abolition of political dynasties using the bills that were created and the arguments presented to push forward such abolition is definitely impractical.
That will be all. Thank you very much for your time your honor.
Interpellation
1. Does the working paper you mentioned in your speech nationally recognized? 2. Do you agree with me that a thesis discussing a phenomenon in a country that that is not even recognized by even a single agency is completely irrational to be mentioned in a debate discussing logical facts and practicability? 3. Are you aware that there are certain requirements as stated in the constitution for specific public offices? 4. Do you agree that these requirements are the ones that define whether a person is qualified or disqualified to run for a public office? 5. Have you read on how the Political dynasty is defined in senate bill no. 2649? 6. Do you agree that this is a clearly defined definition of what a political dynasty is? 7. Do you consider that the current state of the Philippines is improving right now? 8. Are you aware that our current president, President Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. is a part of a political dynasty? 9. Do you consider that a political dynasty as evil? 10. Do you consider that the complete elimination of political dynasties will save the current status of our country?
Rebuttal
Considering the points that I had clarified in my previous speech which are the facts that political dynasties do not prohibit people to vote and run for the position they think they deserve, the non-correlation of political dynasties and poverty; their overall roles in corruption, and the help they bring to our country, it is therefore wrong to use the arguments used by Ms. speaker to create an anti-dynasty bill. Plus, such allegations on the corruption of political dynasties have not been proven due to the serious lack or absence of evidences thereof and is therefore impractical to push forward considering on the facts that they seem to appear to perform their duties with honesty and integrity. Limitation on the allowable family members or persons related to run for public office which could also be considered “The complete eradication of political dynasties” is definitely not the answer. The regulation of electoral process and leveling the playing field should be the solution since if we prohibits a few members of the family, doesn’t it violates the major point of allowing the citizens to freely run for a position they wishes and is basically violates the article 2 section 26 of our constitution and is therefore unconstitutional which enables people to freely run for a public office considering they are qualified as required in the law.
In addition to that, Ms. Speaker did the fallacy of hasty generalization whereas she is incorrectly applying one or two examples to all cases. The fallacy of ad hominem argument which is the fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument. The fallacy of Guilt by Association: The fallacy of trying to refute or condemn someone's standpoint, arguments or actions by evoking the negative ethos of those with whom one associates or of a group, religion or race to which he or she belongs.
Argument from Ignorance: The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false
Argument from Motives (also Questioning Motives). The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument invalid solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives of the one making the claim.
Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience.