The debating team of St. Paul School of Professional Studies (SPSPS) in Palo, Leyte, emerged as the winner in the 2nd Inter-Law School Human Rights Debate organized by the Commission on Human Rights in Quezon City last December 5.
The debating team comprises Jacquelyn Isidro, Joedel Peñaranda, and Ma. Shiela Cheraine Custodio Carillo.
They defeated the University of Caloocan and the University of Northern Philippines during the first and second elimination rounds. The SPSPS debaters lost their momentum in the tournament, as the Far Eastern University (FEU) Institute of Law won the third elimination round, and the San Beda Alabang School of Law won the semi-final round.
However, the SPSPS debaters returned to face off with the FEU team in the final round. Both teams have constructed their arguments with a solid legal foundation and a profound comprehension of human rights. Still, the SPSPS debaters emerged as victors in the tournament.
In the final round, the SPSPS team took the affirmative side into the question of whether the Philippines should allow the establishment of foreign military bases within its territory.
Isidro cited the strategic importance and historical complexity of reestablishing foreign military presence in the country and proposed parameters for selecting base locations, formulating bilateral agreements to protect sovereignty, ensuring economic benefits, and retaining custody and jurisdiction over foreigners who violate Philippine law.
The SPSPS team is preparing for the event to start. (Photo courtesy of SPSPS team)
In addition, Isidro mentioned three main reasons supporting this stance: strategic defense and security against external threats, strengthening international alliances for diplomatic relations and support, and deterring aggression through the presence of foreign bases and powerful allies. The Philippines’ geographic location, ongoing South China Sea disputes, and historical advantages of bases like Subic Bay and Clark are critical considerations in the current global security landscape.
In the second stance, Peñaranda argued that foreign military bases can provide certain benefits due to the country’s limited influence in global politics. He referred to Article 18, Section 25 of the Philippine Constitution, to support his viewpoint. He further argued that permanent foreign military bases offer permanence, immediacy, and continuity, which are lacking in current executive agreements.
Moreover, he mentioned that hosting foreign military bases provides joint training, advanced military technology, knowledge transfer, and economic growth through job creation and infrastructure development. He concluded that military bases must be prepared, especially given China’s assertiveness.
In the final stance, Custodio emphasized the government’s commitment to sovereignty and strategic partnerships for mutual benefit, arguing that allowing foreign military bases in the Philippines sought to protect Filipino rights. Foreign base rejection by their opposition is seen as outdated and hindering international cooperation.
She further mentioned that foreign military bases offer economic opportunities and deterrence that other arrangements may not have. She addressed sovereignty and environmental concerns by citing historical precedent, international support, and structured agreements like the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement and the Visiting Forces Agreement with the US. Historical evidence, international alliances, and structured agreements support reintroducing foreign military bases in the Philippines.
When asked about the strategies employed by the SPSPS team for the debate, both in terms of content and delivery, they mentioned that their prior experience in public speaking was beneficial. They also mentioned utilizing a study guide matrix and inviting an alumni to help them. Despite time constraints for training preparations, they continued reading and engaging in discussions, even while traveling or commuting.
“We actually had a little to prepare, kasi parang five days na lang, we had to fly to Manila na. So, we trained virtually and met at the coffee shops, even to the point of renting the whole space to have adequate space and time to prepare. We also invited an alumnus of SPSPS who was also a debate champion himself during his time. So, we considered that as an upper hand in preparing for the tournament,” Joedel expressed.
“What really helped us was the ‘attitude’ of it’s okay to be wrong, and that, madami pa kaming kulang, in terms of our knowledge and skills in debating; with that mindset set, it helped us to be humble and be accepting of whatever comments and constructive feedback that were deliberated,” he added.
The different schools attended the elimination round program of the 2nd Inter-Law School Human Rights Debate Tournament. (Photo courtesy of SPSPS team)
The team also recommended that individuals aspiring to excel in debate contests should come prepared, deliver speeches with sincerity, have self-confidence, and utilize support mechanisms. Furthermore, they encourage them to participate in public speaking contests and contribute to their efforts.
They also emphasized that their victory in the debate contest positively impacted their personal and academic development. They gained knowledge in advanced topics that still needed to be covered in their classes and acquired valuable skills used by lawyers in litigation.
“Our win meant that other people, especially non-Manileños and the provincial school, can make it, can also do it, as supposed to the prevailing narrative of the hegemonic Metro Manila always prevails, people from the provinces, from Palo, Leyte, can beat those who are more well trained, who have more resources, who have more privileges because of hard work,” Joedel stressed.
The SPSPS team received a recognition plaque and a cash prize of P15,000. They were also honored with a Thanksgiving party and a motorcade organized by their school. (MMP/AAC/PIA Leyte)
