Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution.

Section 1. No person 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.

Due Process.
• The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair
• Principle, that the government must respect all of a persons' legal rights instead of
just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of
life, liberty, or property.

Notes:
• In November 2007 the Philippines ratified and became a State party to the Second
Optional Protocol. States who are party to the treaty have a legal obligation to
abolish the death penalty within their borders, even in the event of future changes in
national legislation. Reintroduction of the death penalty is not allowed for any
reason unless a reservation allowing execution "in time of war pursuant to a
conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime"[5]
was made at the time of ratification which is not the case for the Philippines.

• There is no withdrawal or denunciation mechanism for State’s that are party to the
Second Optional Protocol.
• The absence in the Protocol of a procedural clause for withdrawal means that once
a State has ratified the Second Optional Protocol the death penalty can never be
reintroduced without violating international law.

In a country that has seen the re-imposition, abolition, and possible re-imposition
(again) of the penalty of death.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume that death penalty has been passed.
Now, I'm here to explain to you the impracticability of such law if reinstated, these are the
things that needs to be considered:

First, the Philippines will violate the provisions of a global human rights instrument –
the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR)

When the Philippines ratified, and therefore bound itself to the ICCPR in 1986, it
was obliged to respect any human being’s inherent right to life, as stated in Article 6 of the
treaty. When we additionally ratified the ICCPR’s Second Optional Protocol in 2007 — a
complementary instrument drafted with the specific goal of abolishing the death penalty in
the territory of any State who is a party to it — we expressly and even more strongly bound
ourselves to this obligation.

Article 1 of the protocol states that “No one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to
the present Protocol shall be executed,” and that “Each State Party shall take all
necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.”

Notably, the Philippines is not allowed to denounce or withdraw from its obligations
in the ICCPR of which the protocol forms a part), considering the fundamental nature of
the rights it protects.
 Aside from violating the ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol, the reimposition
of the death penalty may also have adverse economic effects to the country. Some
international instruments look into the ratification of major human rights conventions (the
ICCPR and its protocols are landmark human rights agreements) as a requisite before
granting trade benefits to developing States, such as the Philippines.

Second, one of the most common misperceptions about the death penalty is the
notion that the death penalty saves money because executed defendants no longer have
to be cared for at the state's expense. If the costs of the death penalty were to
bemeasured at the time of an execution, that might indeed be true. But as every
prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge knows, the costs of a capital case begin long
before the sentence is carried out. Experienced prosecutors and defense attorneys must
be assigned and begin a long period of investigation and pre-trial hearings. Jury selection,
the trial itself, and initial appeals will consume years of time and enormous amounts of
money before an execution is on the horizon.

Third, the integrity of the existing justice system. Our justice system has always
been notorious for coddling and trying and retrying high profile personalities. Case in point
is the notorious Vizconde Massacre. This much-sensationalized case ended up having its
prime suspect, Hubert Webb acquitted in 2010. The whole affair was covered in politics
and had Webb not been a scion of an influential family, he would have still been rotting in
jail. Worse, had the decision of the Court of Appeals was proven ultimately wrong and the
death penalty was implemented, they would have killed an innocent man. This brings me
to my fourth point.

The track record of said justice system in terms of accuracy of verdict. The massive
influx of cases can be seen as a detriment to the courts' processes especially during
implementation of the death penalty. Such cases need a thorough review as capital
punishment is no joke. Unless there is statistical data proving that thePhilippine courts are
swift and accurate in handing verdicts, the reinstatement of the death penalty leaves a
persistent and searing question on the integrity of our courts and the justice system itself.

"No judiciary, anywhere in the world, is so robust that it can guarantee that innocent life will
not be taken, and there is an alarming body of evidence to indicate that even well-
functioning legal systems have sentenced to death men and women who were
subsequently proven innocent.”--ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights

Fifth, that there is no proof that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Arguably,
the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. For this, let's think like a criminal for one
second. Take for example a rage-induced "killer." A person under the influence of an
animalistic passion (i.e. intense anger or rage) is in no way capable of thinking anymore of
the consequences of his actions, let alone its repercussions. They are already "in the point
of no return" where their brains have been taken over by biological chemicals that hijack
their actions and higher cognitive functions. Same goes with rape. A rapist, once in pursuit
of his victim, is no longer capable of thinking of the consequences of his act--just that he is
under the influence of animalistic desire. In this instance, the fact that there is a death
penalty in place is irrelevant.

Now let me ask you this.

• Is it really a solution?
 The death penalty only serves as a form of retribution to those who were aggrieved.
And whatever preachers may tell you--revenge feels good. Seeking vengeance on those
who wronged us is of the basest human instinct. Primal even. Revenge, however, is not a
proven way to curb out crime.The life of the criminal can not compensate for the crime
committed. Basically, two wrongs do not make a right.

Killing people through the use of the death penalty is an irreversible act which has
wrongfully killed many innocent people across the world. It prohibits the correction of
mistakes by the justice system and leaves no room for human error, with the gravest of
consequences. Democratic and just societies are, by definition, required to provide due
process to people before the law.

Conclusively, criminality can be fought with sincere and effective law

enforcement and impartial administration of justice.
 The Family Code defines marriage as "a special contract of permanent union
between a man and a woman." It further provides as one of the essential requisites that
the contracting parties "must be a male and a female." It thus clearly prohibits same-sex
couples from entering into a contract of marriage.

Introducing same-sex marriage to our legal system or even in our society is like
duplicating a menu with different ingredients, thus, whether we brand it as similar menu,
the taste and ingredients would always be different and consumers would always react in
different ways, some may favor the original and disown the duplicate or vice versa.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume that same-sex marriage has been
passed. Now, I'm here to explain to you the impracticability of such law by enumerating
certain points.

1. It's not marriage.

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been
the covenant between a man and a woman. That's how children come into the
world. That's how families are formed. Same-sex unions are not marriages,
because they deny the self-evident distinction between male and female; between
mother and father. It's very simple: two entirely different things cannot be called the
same thing.

2. It violates natural law. ( is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law
should be based on morality and ethics.)

Marriage is not just any relationship between two people. It's deeply rooted in
human nature itself, which is governed by natural law. Now, natural law's most basic
precept is this: "Do what's good and avoid what's evil." By reason, we know what is
normally good and bad. Thus, we understand the purpose of our actions. In
marriage, the procreation act of husband and wife has primary purpose:
procreation. To intentionally circumvent that the purpose violates natural law and
the ojective norm of morality.

3. It always denies the child either a father or mother.

Every child should be raised by his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed
by the obvious difficulties face by orphan children. A child who lives in a same-sex
marriage union environment is never going to have his biological mother or father.
He will always be missing a mother or father role model. Through this we can see
that the homosexual movement downgrades and discards motherhood and
fatherhood as something necessary for a child, even when children themselves
naturally crave for mother and father.

4. It validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle.

In the name of the family, same-sex marriage serves to validate the homosexual
lifestyle in all of its bisexual and transgender variants. You see, civil laws are
structuring principles that guide society. Laws shape the life of society, and as such
can mold the perception of right and wrong.
 5. Homosexual unions are 100% sterile

A man and a woman who get married are naturally able to have children and form a
family. But homosexual unions, on the other hand, are 100% sterile. The sexual
acts of two men or two women will never produce a child. If two men want to have a
child, they have to use artificial means and employ surrogates. Their unions cannot
form families. Someone could object and say " well, you're saying that couples who
can't have children shouldn't get married?" The answer to the objection is this:
Procreation is connected to the essence of marriage and family. While man and
woman may accidentally not be able to conceive a child, their union is still in
accordance with nature. In contrast, homosexual unions are sterile and not natural
with homosexual unions- they will never beget families.

6. It defeats the states purpose of benefiting marriage.

One of the reasons why the state gives benefits to true marriage is this: by nature
and by design, marriage provides children and the normal conditions for stable,
beneficial, affectionate and moral atmosphere. This helps perpetuate the nation and
strengthen society. Homosexual unions don't provide that. Their primary purpose,
obectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals. That's why
homosexual unions are not entitled to the same protection that the state gives to
natural marriages.

Now, let me ask you.

• Would the introduction of same-sex marriage thrive in Philippine settings?

• Should we change the family code?
• Should we be fashionable for the sake that we don't offend anyone in the state?

We should always think, not on the momentarily happiness that we see because it
would definitely bring moral confusion, political dissension and social unrest. Philippines is
currently bombarded with tremendous problems involving government malpractices
(corruption), criminality and infrastructural blunders. Philippine Law clearly defines
marriage to be between a man and a woman whose purpose is for an establishment of a
family which is the basic unit of the society. Philippine’s religious heritage strictly protects
thesanctity of marriage as a matrimonial bond between one man and one woman whose
main purpose is procreation.

Conclusively, Philippines is not ready for this kind of consideration or would it ever
be, as long as the constitution stands firm in “Protecting the basic unit of the society”, as
long as it is clearly defined in its Family Code and as long as Christianity is the main
religion of the country. LGBT here in the Philippines would left only with the fundamental
rights to life, property and liberty just as anyone else. These rights if elaborated are against
discrimination, abuse, and unreasonable restrictions particularly of speech, expression and
assembly.

The only thing the government can do to protect LGBT rights in the Philippines is for
them to have congressional representation (which has already been granted) but as they
fall under recognized gender (male or female) and status (Single or Married) which already
had an equal protection under the law, they cannot otherwise invoke equality by
recognizing third gender as sexual preference or recognizing homosexual relationships as
legible for legal marriages. LGBT couples in the Philippines are bound by no legal
obligations and similarly void of any legal protection or recognition by the state, hence,
neither disclaiming nor accepting such has no legal sanction and they are best left that
way unless other rights such as right to life, liberty, property, expression and assembly are
violated.
 For the sake of this debate, let's assume that such law has been passed. I'm going
to explain and enumerate some points that would make the law impracticable in its
application.

First, the banning of cars for the the reason of having no garage is an impairment of
the due process of law where a person is deprived of his right to own property.

Second, it impairs the equal protection clause, where all persons should have
equality in terms of oppurtunity, or protection given by law to persons or classes of
persons who are similarly situated and who therefore belong to a certain classification
made by law.

Look, when one person of a certain class creates a mistake. Is everyone

automatically punished from his wrong doing? Of course, not. That would be unfair and
unjust.
.
Now let me ask you this.

• Is banning the only solution in this problem?

What I'm saying here is, would it be more practical if the state will focus on
implementing strict regulations in an effort to curb over-congestion?

• Is having no garage the only main cause of traffic?

No. There are so much more. One is the poor urban planning and development.

Urban planning is a technical and political process concerned with the development
and use of land, planning permission, protection and use of the environment, public
welfare, and the design of the urban environment, including air, water, and
the infrastructure passing into and out of urban areas, such
as transportation, communications, and distribution networks.

Now, imagine those 100 million people living together and needing houses,
buildings, roads, parking lots and infrastructure and instead of tightly controlling the
ownership and sale of vehicles, would it be better if the state should focus on the
betterment of public transit?

It is more favorable if the government should invest more in public transit, so people
will be persuaded of the thought that taking the public transit is more convenient and
cheaper than having to own a car.

• Are private cars the one to blame for over-congestion?

It is agreed that something must be done about it. LTO and other related
government agencies should take a much closer look and come to a real solution
that does not prejudice private car owners.

After all, policy is one thing and proper implementation is another thing in the
Philippines