SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS FOR PETITIONERS

The policy consideration before us seeks to challenge the status quo in Philippine society and strengthen
the rights of same-sex couples (homosexual) in relation to forming a civil union. Petitioners respectfully
submits that homosexuals be allowed by the State and respected by the Church to form civil unions for
reasons heretofore stated.

First, legalizing homosexual unions would extend the rights and benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.
At present, there are no clear rights delineated for either spouse in homosexual partnerships such as, but
not limited to, hospital and prison visitations, making medical and burial decisions, transfer of joint
properties, custody of children, and insurance benefits.1 If we are to maintain status quo, it will be to
move forward with a life where homosexuals are deprived of their right to due process and equal
protection, right to decisional and marital privacy, and right to found a family in accordance with their
religious or irreligious convictions.

In this relation, the petitioners argue that the recognition by the state of such civil unions will enforce the
dignity of each and every person which the Constitution recognizes by ensuring that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor denied the equal protection of the
laws.2 Moreover, such equality of all persons is also enshrined under existing international human rights
standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights3 and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.4

Second, homosexuals are as capable as heterosexuals when it comes to the performance of civil and
family obligations, and thus, it signifies that the parties were capable of intelligently understanding the
nature and consequences of their act.5 For example, as the Family Code provides that the husband and
wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support,6 hence, it is the firm belief of the petitioners that couples regardless of their sex are also capable
of fulfilment the same. Furthermore, other similar obligations include medical and health care, property
relations, inheritance, adoption, and insurance, among others.

Consequently, the petitioners are asserting that civil unions should be recognized by the State because the
sex of the couple is not a factor in the performance of such civil and family obligations. In that,
homosexuals have proven to be just as capable in fulfilling the same as heterosexuals. Thus, such
discrimination should no longer be followed, and instead, these homosexuals should be afforded the same
benefits and privileges as the heterosexuals through a civil union.

Third, although the Church and the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines maintain and insist
that marriage is between a man and a woman, they also recognize that human dignity should be respected,
and thus, it is the belief of the petitioners that the Church should also respect that fact that homosexuals
can live together in a civil union in the form of a partnership, contract, or agreement.7 With the strong
Catholic influence over the lives of individuals in society, the petitioners believe that in order to bridge
the interest of the State and Church, Catholic Social Teaching (CST) should be applied.

Specifically, CST has 9 key themes of which the petitioners would like to focus on three of them, namely:
(a) Dignity of Every Human Person and Human Rights; (b) Solidarity, Common Good and Participation;
and (c) Family Life.8 In asserting the dignity of the human person, the petitioners are emphasizing on
equality of the human rights of these homosexuals, specifically their right to freely choose ones state of
life including rights to establish a family life. In achieving common good, it is believed that an essential
change with society must be welcomed where the possibility of homosexuals living together is a means of
achieving such individuals own perfection. Lastly, as the Church values family life, the petitioners are

1
U.N. Development Programme, U.S. Agency for International Development, Being LGBT in Asia:
The Philippines Country Report (2014).
2
PHIL. CONST. art. III, 1.
3
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 2, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1948.
4
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, art. 3, opened for signature Dec. 16, 1966.
5
MELENCIO STA. MARIA, JR., PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LAW 119 (1999 ed.).
6
The Family Code of the Philippines [FAMILY CODE], Executive Order No. 209, art. 68 (1988).
7
Oscar Cruz, Same Sex Marriage, available at http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=13036 (last
accessed April 22, 2015).
8
THOMAS MASSARO, S.J., Living Justice: Catholic Social Teaching 115-127 (2000).
advocating that the family is a product of love and sacrifice which should not be limited to heterosexuals
as homosexuals are also capable of giving the same.

WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray that the same-sex couples should be allowed by the
State and be respected by the Church to form civil unions, because:

1. There is a necessity to extend the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples in order to afford
them their right to due process and equal protection under the Philippine Constitution and related
International laws;

2. The current discrimination as to sex is irrelevant in the performance of civil and family
obligations given that couples of the same sex are just as capable of fulfilling the same as couples
of different sex; and

3. The Church values equality among all its members as it promotes Catholic Social Teaching in the
forms of the dignity of every human person, human rights, solidarity, common good, and family
life.

(Sgd.)
ADA JOLINE S. ACAMPADO
Petitioner

(Sgd.)
HANNAH C. ESCUDERO
Petitioner

(Sgd.)
LUISA MARGARITA S. MACASAET
Petitioner

(Sgd.)
JERRY M. SANTOS, JR.
Petitioner

(Sgd.)
SARAH JESSICA S. YANGCO
Petitioner
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS FOR THE RESPONDENTS
The policy consideration before us seeks to allow civil unions between same-sex couples. The respondents
respectfully submit that civil unions between same-sex couples should not be allowed and that the status
quo be maintained for reasons heretofore stated.
First, marriage is a union founded on the distinction of sex. The law requires that the contracting parties be
a male and a female.1 In the U.S. case of M.t. v J.T.2, it was held that:
Despite winds of change, this understanding of a valid marriage (as between man and
woman) is almost universal. In the matrimonial field, the heterosexual union is usually
regarded as the only one entitled to legal recognition and public sanction. All this, in essence,
states that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values
associated with the propagation of the human race.
The Constitution provides that The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing
of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the
Government.3 The term family is to be understood as a stable heterosexual relationship whether formalized
by civilly recognized marriage or not.4 Also, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide that Men
and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry
and to found a family.5 How can they find a family if they are unable to procreate?
Second, there are three parties to a marriage: the husband, wife, and the State. Not only is the state
concerned with the validity of marriage per se but also with the sustainability and maintenance of a
harmonious and healthy family life brought about by such marriage. Marriage is a union vested with public
interest. It is a union between a man and a woman, where they enter into a joint life acting, living, and
working as one. It is a basic civil right of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.6 Aside from
being a sacred obligation, it is a civil contract. Marital relation, unlike ordinary contractual relations, is
regarded by the laws as the basis of the social organization. The preservation of that relation is deemed
essential to public welfare.
Third, the Church has declared that no ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage
exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves,
tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to
cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.7
As regards to Catholic politicians, if it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition
of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their
responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favor of homosexual unions, Catholic
politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications. When legislation in favor of the
recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that
are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible
to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical
Letter Evangelium Vitae, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law
and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality, on condition
that his absolute personal opposition to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal
was avoided. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even

1
The Family Code of the Philippines [FAMILY CODE], Executive Order No. 209, art. 1 (1988).
2
355 A.2d 204 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976) (U.S.).
3
PHIL. CONST. art II, s.12.
4
JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J.., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY 83
(2009 ed.).
5
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 16 (1948).
6
Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).
7
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to
Unions Between Homosexual Persons available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith
/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html (last accessed April 22, 2015).
acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal
of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.8
Fourth, assuming arguendo that our position would be assailed as infirm, since the Constitution mandates
the equal protection of the laws, as could be proffered by the petitioners, the law provides good protection
and consideration for homosexuals. The presence of partnership laws can be equally equated to the notion
of matrimony, without resulting to a disturbance in the status quo of the present laws, since the approval of
same-sex marriages would result in the amendment of several laws, and the prevailing view of Christianity
as regards the matter. Our current partnership laws provide relatively similar dynamics with respect to
marriage, such as but not limited to, property relations and quasi-successional rights.
The only problem we see is that the benefits of marriage can be easily seen, since if one marries, all the
privileges offered by the law are availed of by the spouses upon the celebration of marriage. In partnership,
the benefits of law are disambiguated, though they exist. They can be found in different laws, and that is
the reason why they are not evident.
WHEREFORE, the respondents respectfully pray that civil unions between same-sex couples should not
be allowed because:
1. The Constitution and the law requires that the contracting parties be a male and a female.

2. The state is concerned not only with the validity of marriage per se but also with the sustainability
and maintenance of a harmonious and healthy family life brought about by such marriage.

3. The Church has made it the duty of all Catholics to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual
unions.

4. The law already provides good protection and consideration for homosexuals.

(Sgd.)
GABRIEL ANGELO AGUILA
Respondent

(Sgd.)
MIGUEL ANTONIO ALONZO
Respondent

(Sgd.)
LINDON MIGUEL BACQUEL
Respondent

(Sgd.)
VINCENT BRIAN BAUTISTA
Respondent

(Sgd.)
MERVYNN JOSHUA REYES
Respondent

8
Id.
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS FOR THE PETITIONER

The policy consideration before us seeks to legalize divorce in the Philippines. The petitioner respectfully
submits that divorce be legalized in the country: to strengthen and protect marriage and family as basic
social institution, to value dignity of every human person and to ensure the fundamental equality before
the law of women and men.

First, while the Constitution has provided for a separate article which tackles the Family1 - underscoring
the importance of the family as the most basic institution, as well as strengthening such it is high time
that the country legalizes divorce to protect those who have been the victims of abusive relationships but
have no choice. The government has to consider the present realities which haunt the country one of
which are broken families left with almost no remedies given their circumstances.

While Article 36 of the Family Code2 provides for remedies for unfixable marriages, the cause for such
dissolution of marriage must be traced from events occurring before the marriage itself. On the other
hand, under Article 55 of the same Code3, which provides for grounds for legal separation, causes which
occur during the marriage itself will merit, at most, a bed-and-roof separation; the parties are still married.
Again, these provisions are insufficient to reflect the present realities happening in the country.

With that said, divorce seeks to provide aggrieved spouses a remedy to severe marriage ties due to
circumstances occurring after the marriage.

Second, R.A. 9262 also known as The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
(VAWC) enshrines the long-time concern of the State for the protection and safety of women. Women
have been subjected to gender violence since time immemorial and only a few have had the courage to
defend themselves against their offenders, hence R.A. 9262 gives women and their children a legal
platform and remedy to air out their grievances and to come under the protection of the State. VAWC is a
special law that aims to punish any act or series of acts committed by any person against women-- to be
specific, one of the situations contemplated by the VAWC is the abuse inflicted on a persons wife,
former or present. The VAWC generally punishes 4 kinds of violence: sexual violence, psychological
violence, economic abuse and physical violence4.

In the international sphere, countries that allow marriage give 3 legal reasons for getting a divorce: (1)
The spouses have been living apart for at least a year, (2) one spouse committed adultery, (3) one spouse
treated the other with physical or mental cruelty to the point that living together is no longer possible for
the spouse who was mistreated5. The first reason, living apart, means that the spouses do not intend to live
together anymore or be part of each others live. However, a spouse can also file for a divorce even if the
spouses live under the same roof by proving the intention to live separately (ex. Living in separate rooms,
no sexual relationship, minimal interaction, etc.). The second reason, Adultery, means having a sexual
relationship with someone other than the spouse. Only the spouse who was cheated on can use adultery as
a ground for divorce-- a joint request based on adultery is refused. Forgiveness of the offended spouse is
considered a waiver of the persons right to initiate a divorce proceeding. And the last reason, physical or
mental cruelty, contemplates a situation wherein a spouse inflicts not only bodily harm to his/her spouse,
but also harm to the totality of his/her person. Such acts of cruelty must make it intolerable for the victims
of the cruelty to continue living with the other spouse6.

As seen from the discussion above, VAWC can be further enforced and its objectives achieved when a
divorce law is passed in the Philippines. Countries that have a divorce gives legal grounds and safeguards
to avoid capricious and whimsical exercise of granting divorce. The grounds enumerated above for
claiming divorce is in line with the types of violence that VAWC seeks to prevent.

Third, instead of destroying the sanctity of marriage, divorce actually upholds its sanctity. By reserving
only, the most necessary of reasons - abuses, incapability of fulfilling marital duties, and irreconcilable
differences as grounds to severe marriage ties, it ensures that those who are married can mutually love
and respect each other and are free from harm in their stability and safety. Divorce isnt a quick fix. It
cannot just be invoked anytime there are marital problems. It is only a remedy for the most serious of
situations that would hinder couples from upholding the sanctity of marriage.

1
PHIL. CONST. art. XV
2
The Family Code of the Philippines [FAMILY CODE], Executive Order No. 209, art. 36 (1987).
3
FAMILY CODE, art. 55
4
An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing
Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes [Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004], Republic Act
No. 9262, 8 (2004).
5
Educaloi, The three legal reasons for divorce, available at www.educaloi.qc.ca (last accessed Apr. 21, 2017).
6
Domingo Munsayac and Associates, Anti-violence against women and their children act of 2004, available at www.domingo-
law.com (last accessed Apr. 20, 2017).
Pope Francis Apostolic Exhortation on Love and Marriage called Amoris Laetitia7 provides that men
have proposed an abstract and most artificial theological ideal of marriage, failing to recognize the
presence of concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families. Knowing the problems of
real families leads to recognizing that separation can inevitable and morally necessary to prevent grave
injustice, violence, or chronic ill-treatment, but it must always be a last resort, after attempts at
reconciliation failed to work.8 This is also what the Divorce Bill contemplates. It does not seek to severe
marriage ties as soon as any problem arises, it is only invoked when all ways to reconcile have been
observed but a spouse will still experience grave injustice, violence, or chronic ill-treatment if the
marriage continues.

The Church should not alienate those who decide to divorce as the Pope has shed light on the
responsibility she has over these people. The same exhortation states that seeing the world through the
eyes of Christ inspires the Church to personally care for all the faithful including those who are living
together, those only married civilly, and those who are divorced. Through Christ, the Church turns to
these people with love, and she must assist them towards their rehabilitation and meditation. as they are
guided by Christ himself.9

Allowing divorce will also be a means of showing respect and sensitivity to differing religious beliefs in
the Philippines. It recognizes that the plurality of religious beliefs and cultural sensibilities in the
Philippines demand that different remedies for failed marriages should be made available. For this reason,
the existing remedies of legal separation, declaration of nullity of the marriage and annulment may be
retained, and divorce may be added as one more remedy. Couples may choose from these remedies
depending on their situation, religious beliefs, cultural sensibilities, needs and emotional state.10

While divorce severs the bonds of marriage, divorce as a remedy is not merely for the purpose of re-
marriage; it may be resorted to by individuals to achieve peace of mind and facilitate their pursuit of full
human development. Philippine law must be made consistent in the way it treats religious beliefs with
respect to termination of marriage. Philippine law, through the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines, allows divorce among Filipino Muslims, in deference to the Islamic faith which recognizes
divorce.11 Non-Muslim Filipinos should also be equally accorded with the same option under Philippine
law, in accordance with their religious beliefs.12

The sanctity of marriage is not based on the number of marriages existing but on the quality of marital
relationships. When a marriage is no longer viable, divorce should be an option.13 Unhappy marriages
where the parties have resorted to hurting and abusing each other should be allowed to end.

WHEREFORE, The Petitioner respectfully prays that it is high time for divorce to be legalized in the
country, because:
1. Divorce is the remedy for aggrieved parties whose cause of dissolution occurred during the
marriage, and furthers policies present in Status Quo to address the contemporary family issues in
the Philippines.

2. This policy protects the value and dignity of every human person, regardless of gender.

3. Divorce upholds the sanctity of marriage: it seeks to promote quality over quantity of marriage.

Sgd.

Angelica Elaine Castillo Jemimah C. Landicho

Matthew Kelby H. Chiang-Uy Glen Carlo P. Villanueva

Francis Carlo L. Flameo

7
Pope Francis, Amoris laetitia: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on love in the family, available at
https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-
ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf (last accessed April 21, 2017).
8
Pope Francis, supra note 182.
9
Id. at 61.
10
An Act Introducing Divorce in the Philippines, Amending for the Purpose Title II, Articles 55 To 66 Inclusive and Article 26
of Executive Order No. 209, As Amended, Otherwise Known As The Family Code of the Philippines, and Repealing Article
36 of the Same Code, and for Other Purposes, Proposed H.B. No. 4016, 13th Congress, 1st Reg. Sess. (2016)
11
A Decree To Ordain And Promulgate A Code Recognizing The System Of Filipino Muslim Laws, Codifying Muslim
Personal Laws, And Providing For Its Administration And For Other Purposes [CODE OF MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS],
Presidential Decree No. 1083 (1977).
12
Id.
13
Id.
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS FOR THE DEFENDANT

The bill seeks to introduce divorce as another option for couples in failed and irreparable
marriages aside from what is provided in the civil code. An option that will pave the way for the
full human development and self fulfillment and the protection of human rights. They claim that
existing laws are not enough to guarantee these protected rights.

Moreover, the bill seeks to restore divorce as a rights based option for majority of Filipinos, an
option based on the recognition that the right to enter into a marriage contract has the
corresponding spousal right to end such contract when it has reached the point of irreparability.
Divorce could actually provide protection to battered women and their children from further
violence and abuse. 1

I
Marriage is sacred and should not be easily destroyed.
The law leans in favor of strengthening and protecting marriage

1. The Family Code recognizes only two defective marriages void and voidable
marriages. our laws do not recognize divorce as a mode of severing the marital bond2

2. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered
into in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal family life.3 It is the foundation
of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are
governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the
property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.4

3. [Marriage] is an institution in the maintenance of which its purity the public is deeply
interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society.5

4. The marital relation, unlike ordinary contractual relations, is regarded by the laws as the
basis of the social organization. The preservation of that relation is deemed essential to public
welfare.6
5. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.7 Accordingly, it
shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. 8

6.Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the State. 9

1 An Act Introducing Divorce in the Philippines, Amending for the Purpose Articles 26, 55 to 66 and Repealing Article
36 Under Title II of Executive Order No. 209, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Family Code of the Philippines,
and for Other Purposes, H.B. No. 2380, 17th Cong., 1st Reg. Sess. (2016).
2 Corpus v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, Aug. 11, 2010, available at
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_186571_2010.html (last accessed Apr. 22, 2017).
3 The Family Code of the Philippines [FAMILY CODE], E.O. No. 209, art. 1 (1988).
4 Id.
5 Maynard v. Hill, 125 US 190, 8 S. Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888).
6 Hood v. Roleson, 125 Ark. 30, 187 SW 1059 (1916).
7 PHIL. CONST. art. XV, Sec. 1.
8 PHIL. CONST. art. XV, Sec. 1.
9 PHIL. CONST. art. XV, Sec. 2.
7. It is the policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic
autonomous social institution, and marriage as the foundation of the family.10 The Constitution
decrees marriage as legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties.11

8. Thus, in every annulment case, as the State is interested in the preservation of marriage,
the fiscal shall appear on behalf of the State to make sure there is no collusion or the evidence is
not fabricated. 12 The Office of the Solicitor General may intervene in annulment and nullity
proceedings, considering that the issue of validity of marriage is vested with public interest.13
Such officers appear as counsel for the State in the capacity of defensor vinculi or defender of
the marital bond,14 and they must actively participate15 especially to defend a valid marriage16
The exclusivity of the grounds [for nullity and annulment of marriage] is in line with the policy of
the state to enhance the permanence of marriage.17

9.Legal separation or relative divorce does not affect the marital status.18 Such involves nothing
more than bed-and-board separation of the spouses.19 Hence, the marriage is not dissolved. The
grounds for legal separation are also exclusive.

10. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect the family as a basic
autonomous social institution.20 Thus, in cases seeking to dissolve the marriage, any doubt should
be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage. The law and public policy favor matrimony.
Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an institution in
the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of the
law leans towards legalizing matrimony at it is the basis of human society throughout the
civilized world. 21 Semper presumitur pro matrimonio or always presume marriage this
presumption is considered to be as one of the strongest.22 Public policy should aid acts intended to
validate marriages and should retard acts intended to invalidate marriages.23

11. Hence, as our laws lean in favor of strengthening, protecting, and preserving marriage,
and that divorce is not legally recognized, we submit that divorce should not be implemented in
Philippine jurisdiction.

II
Divorce causes harm and lifelong effects on the children

10 JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY 1314 (2009

ed.).
11 Id.
12 Raymundo v. Andoy, A.M. No. 00-11-01 SC (2003).
13 Republic v. Iyoy, 470 SCRA 508 (2005).
14 Mendoza v. Republic, G.R. No. 157649, Nov. 12, 2012, available at

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/157649.pdf (last accessed Apr. 22,2017).

15 Republic v. Cuison-Melgar, 486 SCRA 177 (2006).
16 Sin v. Sin, G.R. No. 137590, Mar. 26, 2011, available at

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/137590.htm (last accessed Apr. 22, 2017).

17 MELENCIO M. STA. MARIA, PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS, 2015 6th Ed.).
18 Laperal v. Republic, 6 SCRA 357 (1962).
19 Lapuz v. Eufemio, 43 SCRA 177 (1972).
20 PHIL. CONST. art. II, Sec. 12.
21 Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil. 43 (1922).
22 In Re: Rash, 21 Mont. 170, 53 Pac 312, (1993).
23 MELENCIO M. STA. MARIA, supra note 16, at 212.

12. The main motivation behind the campaign for divorce is compassion for persons locked
in intolerable marriage situations; however, the marriage partners are not the only people affected
by divorce. One of the most affected is the child. 24 Whatever law may say about marriage,
parenthood at least is lifelong. It continues to have lifelong implications and responsibilities
towards their children.

13. The Natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the government.
25
Divorce is a spouse centered and definitely does not take into account the child-centered
development.

14. Children are the chief casualties and victims of divorce. There is strong evidence from
the United States and other countries that children of divorced parents are prey to a cluster of
psychological and emotional problems and personality disorders. They suffer from having to
choose sides between their parents and will likely have to move to and from different households.

15. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and
protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being.26 Research has shown
that children of divorced parents suffer from emotional trauma, aggressive behavior, poorer social
skills and higher divorce rates for children of divorce.

16. Therefore, it is important that the state protects the well-being of a child by giving an
environment where separation of the husband and wife must only be because of the valid grounds
provided in the constitution and family code.

WHEREFORE, The Respondent respectfully prays that the legalizing divorce should not be
allowed, because:

1. Marriage is sacred and should not be easily destroyed. The law leans in favor of strengthening
and protecting marriage.
2. Divorce causes harm and lifelong effects on the children.

24 Love is for Life: Pastoral Letter of the Irish Bishops, available
at
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/love/Love_for_Life/LfL.20.html (last accessed Apr. 22, 2017)).
25 PHIL. CONST. art. II, Sec. 12.
26 PHIL. CONST. art. II, Sec. 13.
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS FOR THE APPELLANT

The policy consideration before us seeks to provide opportunities for the poor to obtain decent and
productive work. Poor, as defined in the pending Senate Bill No. 1327, refers to individuals or families
whose income falls below the poverty threshold as defined by the National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA) and/or who cannot afford in a sustained manner to provide their minimum basic needs
of food, health, education, housing, or other essential amenities of life.1 The appellant respectfully
submits that the impoverished should be given an opportunity to uplift their lives through employment,
particularly by ensuring the compliance of private contractors and subcontractors doing public work
projects which are funded by the government, to fill in thirty percent (30%) of the skilled labor
requirements who come from the poor sector and who are residents of the local government units (LGUs)
where these projects are undertaken. Thus, the aforementioned must be enacted for the following reasons
heretofore stated:

First, the 30% requirement will provide more job opportunities for the poor, thus, enabling them to
become more self-sufficient. It is a State policy to free the people from poverty through policies that
provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved
quality of life for all.2 It is also a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all
necessaries for those whom he has begotten.3 Therefore, providing job opportunities for the poor,
especially if he is a father or breadwinner, benefits his whole family. If a workman's wages be sufficient
to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a
sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little
savings and thus secure a modest source of income.4 Following this line of argument, providing
employment to poor families can teach them to be more self-sufficient to themselves. It is a recognized
principle of the Church that participation is the most appropriate and fundamental solution to poverty that
will enable people to take control of their own lives.5 Their reliance to the Government can be reduced, if
not, eliminated. As such, providing employment can be a concrete solution to eliminate poverty.

Second, the Catholic Social Teaching (CST) and the Philippine law recognize the need for preferential
treatment towards the poor. In cases where there is a question as to the rights of individuals, the Church
tells us that the poor have a claim to special consideration. It is the desire of the Church for the poor to
rise above poverty and better their condition in life.6 The Church also recognizes that in order to have
what is required to live, the poor can procure this in no other way than by earning it through their work.7
Poverty is intimately linked to the issue of employment. Expanded employment, especially in the private
sector, would promote human dignity and promote self-reliance of the poor.8 The government and its
people are also given the obligation to evaluate social and economic activity from the viewpoint of the
poor and the powerless.9 This obligation is addressed by giving employment to the poor people because
they have a right to decent work. The primary purpose of this special commitment to the poor is to enable
them to become active participants in the life of society.10 As individuals and as a nation, therefore, we
are called to make a fundamental option for the poor.11 Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the Constitution
states that the State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will free the people from poverty
through policies that promote full employment.12 Congress is also mandated to give highest priority to the

1An Act Providing for a Magna Carta of the Poor, S.B. No. 1327, 3(a), 17th Cong., 1st Reg. Sess. (2017).
2 PHIL. CONST. art. II, 9.
3 Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum para. 13, available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-
xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html (last accessed Apr. 21,
2017).
4 Id. para. 46.
5 Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes para. 63, available at

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-
ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html (last accessed Apr. 21, 2017).
6 Pope Leo XIII, supra note 2, para. 28.
7 Id. para. 44.
8 United States Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching

and the U.S. Economy para. 196, available at, http://www.usccb.org/upload/economic_justice_for_all.pdf

(last accessed Apr. 21, 2017).
9 Id. para. 87.
10 Id. para. 88.
11 Id. para. 87.
12 PHIL. CONST. art. II, 9.

1
enactment of measures that reduce economic inequalities by diffusing wealth for the common good.13 The
State is directed to promote social justice in all phases of national development.14 The promotion of social
justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and
self-reliance.15 Consistent with this, the Supreme Court has also stated that as far as the social justice
principle is concerned with the translation into reality the maxim, he who has less in life should have
more in law.16

Third, the current situation of the poor in the country necessitates the enactment of the 30% requirement.
To reiterate, the Churchs desire is that the poor should rise above poverty and wretchedness, and should
better their condition in life; and for this it strives.17 The latest statistical data of the Philippines shows that
as of 2015, 1 in every 5 Filipinos is poor, that makes 21.9 million Filipino fall below the minimum
income required to meet the basic food and non-food requirement.18 This necessitates the implementation
of more provisions that would lean towards greater inclusive opportunities for the poor to support
themselves. CST imparts upon us that the poor have various rights, among which are the right of the poor
to be cared for19 and the right to work.20 CST condones such disparity in society stating that While an
immense mass of people still lack the absolute necessities of life, some, even is less advanced countries,
live sumptuously or squander wealth. Luxury and misery rub shoulders. While the few more enjoy very
great freedom of choice, the many are deprived of almost all possibility of acting on their own initiative
and responsibility, and often subsist in living and working conditions unworthy of human beings.21 The
Philippines has the highest poverty incidence among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN), 2nd only to Myanmar.22 It is necessary for us to take active measures into ensuring that the gap
between classes be narrowed given that we pale in comparison to our fellow ASEAN countries. CST also
dictates that The gap between most of the richest countries and the poorest ones is not diminishing or
being stabilized but is increasing more and more, to the detriment, obviously, of the poor countries.
Evidently this must have an effect on local labor policy and on the worker's situation in the economically
disadvantaged societies.23

WHEREFORE, The Appellant respectfully prays that the poor should be given the opportunity to obtain
decent and productive work because:

1. This will provide more job opportunities for the poor, thus, enabling them to become more self-
sufficient.
2. The CST and the Philippine law recognize the need for preferential treatment towards the poor.
3. The current situation of the poor in the country necessitates the enactment of such.

Sgd.

Bruzon, Dave
Leachon, Rachel Caroline
Lee, Joan Mae
Magistrado, Joshua Manuel
Uy, Rio Mei
Yap, Melan Anthony

13 PHIL. CONST. art. XIII, 1.
14 PHIL. CONST. art. II, 10.
15 PHIL. CONST. art. XIII, 2.
16 Del Rosario v. De Los Santos, 22 SCRA 1196, 1198 (1968).
17 Pope Leo XIII, supra note 2, para. 23.
18 Philippine Statistics Authority, 2015 Poverty in the Philippines, available at

https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2015_povstat_FINAL.pdf (last accessed Apr. 21, 2017).

19 Pope Leo XIII, supra note 2, para. 29.
20 Id. para. 40.
21 Pope Paul VI, supra note 4, para. 63.
22 Asian Development Bank, Poverty in the Philippines, available at

https://www.adb.org/countries/philippines/poverty (last accessed Apr. 21, 2017).

23 Pope John Paul II, Laborem Exercens no. 17, para. 3, available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-

paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html (last accessed Apr. 21,

2017).

2
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS FOR THE RESPONDENT

The policy consideration before us seeks to protect the right of the poor to the opportunity to obtain
decent and productive employment in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity. The
respondent respectfully argues that it is not imperative to ensure the compliance of private contractors and
subcontractors doing national and local public work projects, funded by either the National Government
or any Local Government Unit (LGU), to fill in thirty percent (30%) of the skilled labor requirements by
qualified workers who come from the poor sector and who are residents of the LGUs where these projects
are undertaken: Provided, that where the number of available resources is less than the required
percentage provided therein, said requirements shall be based on the maximum number of locally
available labor resources and shall be certified by the municipal, city, provincial or district engineer as
sufficient compliance with the labor requirements under this act for reasons heretofore stated.1

First, compelling private contractors and subcontractors to abide by such strict standards of having to
have 30% of the skilled labor requirement come from the poor sector and who are residents of the LGUs
where the projects are being undertaken might dissuade private contractors from contracting business
with certain LGUs in the future. Having such an exacting standard as a necessary requirement to
undertake a project might discourage private contractors from undertaking projects in LGUs that lack
qualified workers. This might result in an unequal and uneven development of local governments, which
completely contrasts with the States policies of empowering and ensuring the local autonomy of LGUs. 2
Consequently, the presence of stringent requirements also goes against the Constitutional State policy of
encouraging private enterprises.3

The lack of legislation on the matter is not a bar to the hiring of the poor as laborers. It is provided by the
social encyclical Rerum Novarum that the regulation of labor relations is the responsibility of persons
involved. Only when the parties are unwilling or unable to fulfill this function can the State intervene for
the sake of common good.4 Absent any showing that the parties involved are incapable of fulfilling this
duty, there is no such necessity for such legislation since laborers who are willing to worked should be
more than capable of getting hired by their own merits.

Second, compelling private contractors to abide by such standards might result in substandard work,
ultimately resulting to detrimental effects for the LGU. Imposing a requirement that 30% of the skilled
labor should come from the poor sector and are residents of the LGU might result in the project not being
done properly.

A particular private contractor or subcontractor might already have an existing workforce tailor-fit for the
contract entered into with the government. Forcing private contractors to hire locals with whom they have
not developed a particular relationship or do not know their particular skillsets might result in the project
being done incongruently with how the private contractor designed the project.

Third and lastly, the requirement provided by law would result in the deprivation of the private contractor
to decide how to carry out its intended project, also known as management prerogative. Management
prerogative is known as the free will of the employer to conduct his own business affairs to achieve his
purpose.5 An employer is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of
employment, including: hiring.6 A worker may be qualified to work for the private contractor, but it is
also very likely that he is not the most qualified worker applying for the position. 30% of the workforce is
too much of a stringent requirement which makes possible the employment of substandard employees
resulting in a substandard outcome. The encyclical Populorum Progressio also provides that public
authorities must choose objectives and stimulate activity for development but must take care to associate
private initiative and intermediate bodies with this work. They must avoid the danger of complete

1
Magna Carta for the Poor, S.B. No. 1327, Cong, 1st session, (2015).
2
P. Cs. art. II, 25.
3
P. Cs. art. II, 20.
4
Catholic Church. 1940. Rerum novarum, encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII on the condition of labor
(with discussion club outline). New York: Paulist Press.
5
Yap v. Hon. Inciong, 186 SCRA 664, 667 (1990).
6
San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union v Hon Ople et al., G.R. No. 53515, Feb 8 1989.
collectivization or arbitrary planning which deny liberty and prevent the exercise of fundamental rights of
persons.7

WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully prays that private contracts and subcontractors doing
national and local public work projects should not be compelled to abide by standards of having at least
30% of the skilled labor requirement by qualified workers who come from the poor sector and who are
residents of the LGUs where these projects are taken, because:

1. Such standards will dissuade and discourage private contractors from undertaking projects in
particular LGUs, ultimately to the detriment of the States policies of ensuring local autonomy and of
encouraging private enterprises.

2. Such requirement will result in substandard outcomes for the projects as the labor requirements
might result in the project not being done in accordance with the standards needed for the proper
implementation of the project.

3. Such requirement deprives the private contractor of his prerogative to hire workers whom he
deems capable of fulfilling the requirements of the project, similarly resulting in substandard outcomes as
mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph.

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
Ramon Nonito Ayo, Jr. Robert Escalante

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
Jasmine Balbanero Gabriel Gomez

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
Joshua Brandon Celaje Dominic Umandap

7
Catholic Church. 1967. Encyclical letter (Populorum progressio) of His Holiness Pope Paul VI. London:
Catholic Truth Society.
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS FOR PETITIONER

The policy consideration before us seeks to re-impose the death penalty on heinous drug-related crimes.
Petitioners respectfully submit that status quo be retained for reasons heretofore stated.

The imposition of death penalty for serious drug offenses is unduly oppressive, unreasonable and
repugnant to the constitution and cannot survive a substantive due process challenge. There is no
Compelling State Interest that would justify deprivation of life for the commission of drug-related crimes
as it has consistently failed to fulfill the policy goals for which it exists such as deterrence, retribution,
protection of society and vindication of legal order. House Bill No. 1 has failed to substantiate the
compelling state interest to justify an infringement of the right to life. Death penalty does not effectively
meet the policy goals and problems surrounding its administration and execution accomplishes the
opposite of what it intends to do.1 The infringement is not narrowly-tailored to serve a compelling state
interest. There are other means to deter the commission of drug-offenses that the state may consider
before the imposition of death penalty.

As a State Party to the United Nations, and as signatories to the various treaties respecting human rights,
the Philippine Government is legally bound to comply with the same pursuant to: (1) The time-honored
principle of pacta sunt servanda; and (2) The Commission on Human Rights constitutional duty to
monitor the Philippine Governments compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights.2
The Philippines is a party to the Second Protocol of the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), aiming at the abolition of the death penalty,3 which provides that: (1) No one within the
jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed; and (2) Each State Party shall take
all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.4 Considering the foregoing, the
reinstitution of the death penalty will necessarily subject the Philippine Government to liability under the
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.5

In People v Mateo,6 the Supreme Court discussed that: statistics disclosed that within the 11-year period
since the re-imposition of the death penalty law in 1993 until June 2004, the trial courts have imposed
capital punishment in approximately 1,493, out of which 907 cases have been passed upon in review by
the Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of the penalty in only 230 cases, comprising only
25.36% of the total number, and 71.77% of the death penalty cases elevated to it on automatic review
were either modified of reversed/vacated. Political affiliation7, corruption, ideologies, attitudes, media and
public opinion8, and attachments of the judges have influence over their decision. According to a recent
study on the transparency and accountability of the judiciary, the public perceive the judiciary as the
second most corrupt public institution, after the police.9 Justice Brion, in his supplemental Opinion in
Lejano v People10, said that judges and justices are no different from the members of the jury, they are not
immune from the pervasive effects of the general public (prejudicial publicity) and are covered by the sub
judice rule. The institutional design of the system is one of the main considerations whether or not a
certain policy may be applied effectively, and a system which suffers from corruption is not the most
suiting environment for the imposition of an extreme policy such as the death penalty.11

1
RACHEL KING, CAPITAL CONSEQUENCES: FAMILIES OF THE CONDEMNED TELL THEIR STORIES, 105,
113 (2005).
2
PHIL. CONST. art. XIII.
3
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the
abolition of the death penalty, opened for signature Dec. 15, 1989, 1642 U.N.T.S. 414.
4
Id.
5
U.N. General Assembly, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, General Assembly
Resolution 56/83 (Dec. 12, 2001), available at
https://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup17/Batch%201/Articles%20of%20Responsibility%20of%20States%20f
or%20Internationally%20Wrongful%20Acts.pdf (last accessed Apr. 21, 2017.
6
People of the Philippines v Efren Mateo, 433 SCRA640 (2004).
7
Stuart S. Nagel, Political Party Affiliation and Judges' Decisions, THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE
REVIEW, 843-850 (1961).
8
Bradley W. Joondeph, The Many Meanings of 'Politics' in Judicial Decision Making SANTA CLARA
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, 347-379 (2008).
9
Conference Paper by Langseth et al., United Nations Office for Drug Central and Crime Prevention,
Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption (March 2001)
A government that allows the reinforcement of the death penalty adheres to a system of retributive justice.
Retributive justice is a system wherein punishment of a person is morally justified if he committed an
offense which deserves that punishment. Kant rationalized the concept behind retributive justice as a way
of removing bloodguiltiness among the people, otherwise they would not fear the participation of a
crime as a public violation of justice.12 The restorative justice system became essential in a societys
transition to peace and in bridging the conflicts between the state and informal structures with regard to
justice.13 A system that enforces restorative justice holds its belief that man is capable of change and aims
to restore man to its original state of goodness. While the Philippines declares that it adheres to the
latter kind of justice system, the re-imposition of the Death Penalty in our country would seem to prove
otherwise. Several studies have showed that there is no legitimate proof that the enforcement of death
penalty serves as a deterrent to crimes in different countries.14 Most criminologists believe that studies
showing a correlation between the enforcement of death penalty and the lowering of crime rates used
erroneous models as it cannot be established that there is a relation between the two.15 The war on drugs
rather than being a battle that aims to obliterate drug addiction and all things related to drug abuse in
general, the said war seems to be a mechanism to obliterate the poor or the slaves of the nation.

The Church has continually taught and upheld the inherent dignity of human persons drawing from their
being made in the image and likeness of God.16 The imposition of death penalty not only negates this
inherent dignity, but fosters a dangerous philosophy that some lives are more valuable than others. The
system is bogged with the State claiming moral ascendancy to the extent of claiming discretional right
over the lives of its citizens. Jesus highlighted this hypocrisy when he said, Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone.17 The system is further criticized when, in the penultimate of our redemptive history,
our Lord and Savior, innocent as he Is, took to the Cross and was meted with the extreme penalty of
death.18 Blessed Pope John Paul II in Evangelium VItae19 advocates for restorative justice as being more
in line with human dignity and Gods plan. While the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not forbid
death penalty altogether, it seeks to make it a penalty of last resort and to be imposed only under very rare
circumstances.20

WHEREFORE, petitioners respectfully pray that the death penalty not be re-imposed because:

1. The Philippine Justice system is not ready for an extreme policy;

2. Death penalty cannot be re-imposed because of international obligations of the Philippines;
3. There is no Compelling State Interest that would justify deprivation of life;
4. The Philippines must make good its commitment to have a restorative justice system; and,
5. The dignity of human persons must be respected.

(Sgd.)

Patrick Edward Balisong Julia Hanna Soriano Jazmin Deborah Yrreverre

Patricia Joy Ignacio Krytoffer Robin Yap

12
James P. Sterba, Retributive Justice, Political Theory, 5(3), 349-362. (1977), available at
http://www.jstor.org.vlib.interchange.at/stable/190646 (last accessed Apr. 21, 2017).
13
Kieran McEvoy, et al. INTRODUCTION: Practice, Performance and Prospects for Restorative
Justice, The British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 469-475. (2002), available at
http://www.jstor.org.vlib.interchange.at/stable/23638876 (last accessed Apr. 21, 2917).
14
Max Ehrenfreund, Theres still no evidence that executions deter criminals, THE WASHINGTON POST,
Apr. 30, 2014, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/30/theres-still-no-
evidence-that-executions-deter-criminals/?utm_term=.eeb4be4b3e16 (last accessed Apr. 21, 2017).
15
Amnesty International USA, The Death Penalty and Deterrence, available at
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-
deterrence (last accessed Apr. 21, 2017).
16
Genesis 1:26-27 (New International Version).
17
John 8:7.
18
Luke 23.
19
Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 56, available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html (last accessed Apr. 21, 2017).
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS FOR THE RESPONDENT

The policy consideration before us seeks to bar the re-imposition of Death Penalty in Drug Related Case.
The respondent respectfully submits death penalty for Drug Related Cases must be re-imposed for the
reasons heretofore stated.

The re-imposition of death penalty is not unconstitutional. In resolving this motion, it is essential to
answer two questions. First, is the death penalty, per se, unconstitutional? Second, is the law imposing
death penalty unconstitutional? The answer to the first question is a blatant no. While the answer to the
second question depends on certain circumstances. Article III, Section 19 of the Constitution provides:

Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced
to reclusion perpetua.1

A plain reading of the law provides that death penalty may be imposed by the Congress for compelling
reasons involving heinous provided that the law follows certain safeguards to guide law enforcers in
carrying out its provisions.

In relation to the provision invoked above, specifically Article III, Section 19 of the Constitution, the
re-imposition of death penalty is not cruel, degrading, or inhumane punishment. Jurisprudence provides
that death penalty is not cruel, degrading, or inhumane. In fact, the Supreme Court quoted a U.S case
which states that punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death, but the
punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. It implies
there something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life.2

Moreover, most would argue why drug related cases were listed under heinous crimes, some would argue
that only crimes which involve the death of the victim such as murder should be considered as a heinous
crime therefore punishable by death penalty. However, we must remember that the victim of the crime
was never a defining essence of the death penalty in the context of our legal history and cultural
experience. The death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes because the perpetrators thereof have
committed unforgivably execrable acts that have so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal acts with
severely destructive effects on the national efforts to lift the masses from abject poverty through
organized governmental strategies based on a disciplined and honest citizenry, and because they have so
caused irreparable and substantial injury to both their victim and the society and a repetition of their acts
would pose actual threat to the safety of individuals and the survival of government, they must be
permanently prevented from doing so. Thus, it is not right to conclude that just because a life was not
taken by the criminal, death penalty cannot be imposed.

It is imperative therefore, to set the standards and classifications on the meaning of Drug Related Crimes
as it may indeed be too general. It is governed by R.A. 91653 where most of the penalties range from life
imprisonment to death. It is conceded that drug dependency or drug addiction should not be a basis to
quell the life of the offender rather the policy should be the reformation as they are to be considered
victims and it is the interest of the state to reintegrate them into the society and eliminate the stigma that
follows being a drug user.

The policy should, however, shift when it comes to dealers, manufacturers, smugglers or producers of
these illegal drugs. These mentioned are the ones that should be considered the predators. Although they
are not addicted, they profit from the addiction of other people. Hence, they expand and promote
addiction. Furthermore, the proliferation of drug trading has been compounded with murders and other
grave crimes. Different syndicates try to fight over their market.

1
HIL. CONST. Art. III, 19.
P
2
In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890).
3
An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425,
Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, And For Other
Purposes [Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002], Republic Act No. 9165 (2002).
Therefore, it is the stand of the opposition to remove any bar on imposing the death penalty on drug
dealers, manufacturers, smugglers or producers. Doing so we uphold the policy of the state in preventing
drug proliferation among the people and remove the stigma imposed on these drug addicts which provides
difficulty in their reintegration into society.

Sgd.

Abaquita, Carlo

Ballesteros, Abbie

Lumapas, Alex

Mendoza, Joem

Murakami, Criselle

Rodriguez, Zoe

Sabaupan, Liezel