Julienne

Therese V. Salvacion October 11, 2015

1M , Legal Research, Writing, & Logic Atty. Adrian Aumentado

BATTLE ROYALE ACT: UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Millennium Educational Reform Act or the Battle Royale Act (BR Act) is a law enacted in
Japan at the dawn of the millennium upon the collapse of their nation as exhibited in the film Battle
Royale. This law was legislated due to a massive boycott of 800,000 students. The rationale behind the
BR act is the loss of confidence of the adults for the youth and the fear that grew in them.
In the Battle Royale Act, a certain class was brought to an isolated island wherein the only goal
of each and every single one of them is to kill the rest and be the sole survivor. They are secured with
electronic explosive collars that would monitor their every move and record every word they say. They
are equipped with a wide variety of weapons, from the deadliest rifles to the most harmless binoculars.
The legislators of Japan must have thought that the solution to the social unrest is by minimizing the
number of living youth and promoting brutality and violence as a means of achieving an alleged peace.
Relating the Battle Royale Act to the Philippine laws, it is, without a doubt, unconstitutional.
The disputed law has violated a number of Constitutional provisions that indubitably exploits the youth.
The BR act deprives a person from life and liberty without the due process of law. Furthermore, by and
large, it does not protect a persons rights for social justice. Rather, it promotes social inequality by
engaging such innocent students to vicious activity that conveys a message that he or she is above the
rest. The BR act also disrespects the States commitment in protecting the family as a basic social
institution. Lastly, it disregards the significance of the nations role in rearing of the youth.

The BR Act deprives the youth from life and liberty without due process of the law.
The 1987 Constitution provides the Filipinos protection of their civil and political rights. This is to
preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security. Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
provides:

Article III, Section 1: No persons shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. 1


1
CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 1.
 The BR Act undisputedly violates this Constitutional provision by depriving the youth of life and
liberty. This provision has a universal application to all persons regardless of race, nationality, and age.
Ones right to life is not merely a right to the preservation of life but also the security of the limbs and
organs of the human body against unlawful harm. 2 On the other hand, liberty is the freedom of a
person to choose wherever they go and to act in such a manner, consistent with the equal rights of
others, as he desire to do so. 3
In Battle Royale, the class was supposed to go to a field trip; however, they were stupefied by gas,
secured with electronic explosive collars, and transported to an isolated island far from their families.
They were clueless with regard to where they were and to what they are about to do. The authorities
abused their innocence and obedience. They were literally held in the neck by the authorities and any
violation or disobedience would lead to their unwanted death. Little did they know that they were going
to be transformed to murders in the island for self-preservation. This is a clear illustration of BR Acts
violation of Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The students were not informed or ordered
beforehand. They were forced into this chaotic wormhole. Japan absolutely did not preserve their lives
nor did they secure the limbs and organs of the students. The students were cheated out of their liberty.
They were no longer free to go wherever they desire. They were thrown to this battle. Their freedom is
barred by this murderous law. Due process was not at all provided. Thus, BR act is needed to be
rendered unconstitutional by a clear violation of the provision on due process of law.

The BR Act denies the youth of Social Justice
The Constitution gives utmost importance to the prevalence of Social Justice and Human Rights
of the people of the State by devoting an article on this. Section 1 of the Social Justice and Human Rights
provides:

Article XIII, Section 1: The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably
diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. 4

2
Suarez, Political Law Reviewer, 137 ( 2011 ed.)
3
Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 143.
4
CONSTITUTION, Art. XIII, Sec. 1.
 Social justice deals with a humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic
forces by the State. It promotes the welfare of all the people through the adoption of laws that would
protect the same. 5 BR act unquestionably does not comply with this. What was enacted is the exact
opposite of what social justice intends to prevail. Legalizing unreasonable murders contradict the
whole principle of social justice. BR Act encourages the youth to kill in order to preserve themselves. It
dehumanizes the law. Hence, the BR act should be declared unconstitutional by evidently
contradicting the principle of social justice.

The BR Act does not recognize the sanctity of family.
The law recognizes the significance of the family in the longevity of the State. A whole article in
the Constitution is likewise provided focusing mainly on the protection of the family. In relation to
children, this article correspondingly safeguards their welfare. Particularly,

Aritcle XV, Sec. 3 (2) : The State shall defend the right of children to assistance,
including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect,
abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. 6

The BR act does not, by any chance, defend the right of the children to special protection from
all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development.
What the BR act required is in conflict with this special protection. The students are exposed to
activities that exemplify extreme exploitation. Cruelty is the main nature of the disputed law. Every
single aspect of the law is prejudicial to their development.
In the film, Mitsuko, one of the students who is part of the battle, even said Whats wrong with
killing? We all have our reasons. This statement coming from a poor innocent student signifies how
the BR act ruthlessly exploited the minds of these students by inculcating that killing is acceptable for
as long as it would lead to self-preservation. Killing a person is inherently wrong in conformity with the
natural laws of life. Mitsuko, being a student, consequently manifests that she is a part of a family and
is a child of the family. The BR act does not indicate this special protection clause in any way, shape or
form. It promotes otherwise. For that reason, the BR act is unconstitutional for the unceasing
exploitation and promotion of cruelty and abuse to the children.

5
Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 2, 1940
6
CONSTITUTION, Art. XV, Sec. 3(2).
The BR Act disregards the essence of rearing of the youth.
The Constitution recognizes the importance of the role of the youth in nation building. This is
perceptible in Section 13, Article II, of the 1987 Constition. To wit,

Article II, Sec. 13 : 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. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage
their involvement in public and civic affairs.

It does not only seek to promote the civic efficiency and moral character but also their well being
in general. Thus, laws that would deteriorate the same shall not be enacted. The Supreme Law
identifies the impact the youth could bring to the nation. That being the case, no laws shall be passed
that would purposely lessen the members of the youth who could bring about a difference in the
country. No laws shall be legislated that would exploit them which would consequently result to a
decline of quality youth. The BR Act blurs the fine line between what is right from wrong. The BR act
fails to countenance nation building. It involves tearing the nation down. The solution employed to the
unrest is irrational. It does not logically perpetrate the goal in mind, which is to reduce the alleged
boycott and bring rise to the nation once again.
As a response to this Constitutional Mandate, our legislators enacted Republic Act No. 7610 :
An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination, and for other purposes. This special law takes action of the special protection of
children elucidated in Article XV, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution. RA 7610 provides special protection to
children from all firms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination. This also provides
sanctions and penalties to those that will violate the law. 7 Article VI, Section 10 of the
aforementioned law specially provides the penalties for any person who commits other acts of neglect,
abuse, cruelty, or exploitation other conditions prejudicial to the childs development. The battle
under the BR act clearly constitutes a violation of this section. 8 The unscrupulous killings would
definitely fall under this section.

7
Republic Act No. 7610 ,Sec. 2 , June 17, 1992
8
Ibid.
 Lastly, since the generally accepted principles of international law for a part of the laws of the
land, 9 the rights settled in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (the Convention)
should also be taken into consideration. It shall be given great weight because the several signatories
all over the world have agreed upon this. Section 4 of the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child
provides that:

Article 4 (Protection of rights): Governments have a responsibility to take all available
measures to make sure childrens rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. When
countries ratify the Convention, they agree to review their laws relating to children. This
involves assessing their social services, legal, health and educational systems, as well as
levels of funding for these services. Governments are then obliged to take all necessary
steps to ensure that the minimum standards set by the Convention in these areas are
being met. They must help families protect childrens rights and create an environment
where they can grow and reach their potential. 10

In lieu with this provision, it is the duty of the respective governments of the countries to create
and ratify laws that would abide by this. Such rights shall be given paramount consideration. The
government is tasked to take care of the children, not throw them into a battlefield no human being
would want to suffer. The enactment of the BR act goes against the spirit of this provision.

Moreover, Articles 19 and 36 of the Convention distinctively provided the protection of children
from all sorts of violence and exploitation as exhibited in Battle Royale. As to say,

Article 19 (Protection from all forms of violence): Children have the right to be protected
from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally. Governments should ensure that
children are properly cared for and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by
their parents, or anyone else who looks after them. 11

Article 36 (Other forms of exploitation): Children should be protected from any activity

9
CONSTITUTION. Art. II, Sec. 2.
10
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
11
Ibid.
 that takes advantage of them or could harm their welfare and development. 12

As previously discussed, it is without a doubt as well that the felonious acts involved in the BR
act would also fall under the aforecited articles. The students were exposed to a homicidal and
barbaric society that would in effect degrade their moral beliefs. These students are still in their
formative years and are still covered by these rights.
Henceforth, the BR act is unconstitutional for consciously adopting an act that is certainly
violative of the constitutional mandate of rearing of the youth.
With the foregoing reasons, it is with dire necessity that the BR act be declared
unconstitutional on the grounds that it deprives the youth from life and liberty without due process of
law, denies the youth of social justice, does not recognize the sanctity of family, and disregards the
essence of rearing of the youth.

12
Ibid.