As we convene today to deliberate on the issue of charter change in the Philippines, it's

imperative that we address the complex challenges and risks associated with this contentious proposal.
While the affirmative side may argue for its potential benefits, we must also carefully consider the pitfalls
and consequences of such sweeping reforms.

The first speaker already explained why charter change is unnecessary and the second speaker
showed why benefits wise, charter change is counterproductive …… Now, we proceed with why charter
change is counterintuitive and impractical.

Firstly, just as a responsible parent prioritizes their children's health and education over a new
phone, the government must prioritize addressing pressing issues before considering the implementation
of charter change. The pressing challenges facing our country, such as poverty, corruption, and
infrastructure deficits that demands our urgent attention and resources. Pursuing constitutional
amendments at the expense of addressing these pressing socio-economic issues risks diverting scarce
resources and political capital away from more urgent priorities. We must carefully weigh the opportunity
costs of charter change against the potential benefits, ensuring that any reforms we pursue deliver
tangible benefits to the Filipino people. Imagine allocating 28 billion pesos just for the charter change to
be implemented, while millions of Filipinos continue to struggle with poverty, lack of access to basic
healthcare, and inadequate education. Such a significant investment in constitutional amendments would
be a misplaced priority when those funds could be allocated towards improving the lives of those in need.

But according to the affirmative side, other countries experienced flourishing economy due to
charter change, yes, it is an irrefutable fact that many has succeeded taking this path but there are those
who have not, just like in Valenzuela, they implemented charter change to promote social justice but
ended up concentrating the power on the executive department that led to authoritarianism. What I am
saying is that simply pointing to the success of charter change in other countries does not guarantee
similar outcomes for the Philippines. Each country has its own set of challenges, socio-political dynamics,
and institutional frameworks that shape the impact of constitutional reforms. What works in one country
may not necessarily translate to success in another. The argument fails to acknowledge the potential risks
and drawbacks of charter change, particularly in the Philippine context. As highlighted earlier, pursuing
constitutional amendments diverts resources and attention away from addressing pressing socio-
economic challenges. Allocating billions of pesos towards charter change could be better spent on
initiatives aimed at improving the lives of millions of Filipinos who continue to struggle with basic needs

Proceeding with the next argument, just like how a parent can upset their child even with good
intent on gifting a new phone, the process of charter change carries inherent risks, despite the best of
intentions. Murphy's Law reminds us that 'anything that can go wrong will go wrong.' This adage
underscores the complexity and uncertainty inherent in the process of charter change. Amending the
fundamental law of the land is a multifaceted undertaking that requires meticulous consideration of legal,
political, and social factors. Despite our best efforts to anticipate and mitigate risks, unforeseen
challenges can arise, leading to potential unintended consequences. Legal ambiguities may emerge,
institutional disruptions could occur, and social unrest may escalate jeopardizing the stability and
effectiveness of the reform process. The absence of clear precedents for certain aspects of charter
change only exacerbates the situation, heightening ambiguity and confusion.

Next point of matter is the inherent risk of political turmoil and division that charter change poses
to our society. The process of amending the Constitution requires broad consensus and cooperation
among various political factions, which may prove difficult to achieve in a polarized political environment.
Disagreements over the scope and substance of charter change could deepen political divisions, leading
to protracted debates, deadlock, and gridlock in the legislative process or worse into violence. As we can
recall a few years back, two congressmen got into a fist fight at the House of representatives during the
debate of what mode of charter change must be implemented. Imagine politicians that highly values their
reputations resorted into violence over charter change. This shows how grave the implications of charter
change can be. Moreover, the perception of unfairness or exclusion in the charter change process could
erode public confidence in democratic institutions and undermine the rule of law. In contrast to the
speculative claims put forth by the affirmative side, the arguments that we have presented are not
grounded in conjecture but in undeniable certainty. These points are not mere possibilities but
incontrovertible truths, poised to shape the fabric of our nation's future

At the end of the day, implementation of charter change boils down as an investment that hinges
on our capacity to endure risks. Allow me to conclude with a pertinent adage: 'Only risk investing what
you can afford to lose.' In the context of charter change, we are contemplating a significant investment –
not just of resources, but of our nation's stability, economic independence, and social justice. We risk
altering a constitution that has steadfastly upheld these principles for decades, for 37 years to be exact in
exchange for uncertain potential economic growth and benefits at the hands of the foreigners that we trust
so much, to the extent that we place the future of the economy at their volition. As we weigh the
undeniable risks and speculated rewards, let us pause to ponder, are the potential gains worthy of risking
with the very foundation of our society.

Before I move on to my last point, I will address the claim of constitutional deficiencies that the
affirmative side mentioned. Constitutional reform is not the only way to address the issue, it can be an
enactment of law defining what exactly political dynasty is. Using the issue of constitutional deficiencies to
justify charter change is a slippery slope that must be avoided at all cost.

Lastly, let us remember that the constitution is not merely a legal document but a cornerstone of our
democracy, framed to promote social justice and safeguard the rights and welfare of our country and its
citizens. As we contemplate the prospect of charter change, we must remain steadfast in our commitment
to these foundational principles.

The framers of our Constitution envisioned a society where every Filipino enjoys equal opportunities,
dignity, and respect under the law. They enshrined fundamental rights and freedoms to protect individuals
from arbitrary actions by the state and to ensure that no one is left behind in the pursuit of progress and
prosperity.

Moreover, the Constitution serves as a bulwark against abuses of power and tyranny, providing checks
and balances to prevent the concentration of authority in the hands of a few. It establishes mechanisms
for accountability and transparency, holding government officials accountable to the people they serve.

In considering any proposed changes to the Constitution, we must evaluate them against the yardstick of
social justice and the common good. Will these reforms advance the interests of all Filipinos, particularly
the marginalized and vulnerable? Will they strengthen our democratic institutions and uphold the rule of
law? Will they foster inclusive growth and equitable development?

We still cannot afford to lose sight of these fundamental principles in the pursuit of narrow political
agendas or short-term gains. Any charter change must be grounded in a genuine commitment to
promoting social justice and protecting the rights and welfare of our country and its citizens.

In conclusion, while charter change may hold promise for our nation's future, we must approach this issue
with caution and foresight. We cannot afford to ignore the risks and challenges associated with such
sweeping reforms. Let us engage in thoughtful and informed dialogue, considering the broader
implications for political stability, governance, and socio-economic development in the Philippines.

Allow me to conclude with a pertinent adage: 'Only risk investing what you can afford to lose.' In the
context of charter change, we are contemplating a significant investment – not just of resources, but of
our nation's stability and social justice. We risk altering a constitution that has steadfastly upheld these
principles for decades, in exchange for uncertain potential benefits. As we weigh the risks and rewards,
let us consider whether the potential gains are worth jeopardizing the foundations of our society

Regarding the argument that has been raised by the affirmative side, saying that the constitution
should be amended because it is not fit for the occurrences in the modern world, or simply saying that the
constitution is outdated. It is true that the world has significantly changed from the date when the
constitution was framed up until the present, at the end 37 years is a lot of time.

1. Do you have a phone mrs. speaker?

Ans: yes

2. Have you been using that phone for some time now?

3. So it is not new?

4. is your phone still functioning well? It still serves its purpose?

5. Do you agree that your phone is helpful in many ways, and it can even potentially earn you
money?

6. If your parents gifted you a new phone will you accept it?

7. Will you still accept the phone if in exchange tour sibling wont be able to enroll next school year?

8. Will you still accept it if it means that your sibling wont be able to get medical treatment?

9. So do you agree that despite a new phone’s potential benefits to you, including earning money,
health and education still is a more important priority?

10. So do you agree that as a parent, their job is to prioritize your sibling’s health and education over
your new phone?

11. So do you agree that if they prioritize your phone above your sibling’s health and education it
will be irrational and you may respond negatively to that?

12. So do you also agree that there are far more important things to prioritize like education and
health over charter change even though it can offer benefits to the Filipino people?

13. So do you agree that despite having good intent in implementing charter change