PRACTICABILITY (NEGATIVE – 3RD SPEAKER)

A law is valuable not because it is a law, but because

there is right in it.

Good morning distinguished guests, adjudicators, worthy

opponents, teachers and students.

Our first speaker has undoubtedly established the

necessities of upholding Article 992 of the NCC by
establishing how the existing law is PRESUMED VALID
AND CONSTITUTIONAL unless the Courts declare
otherwise, how it is IMPARTIAL IN ITS APPLICATION by
benefitting both the illegitimate children and legitimate
children and relatives and how its abolition would
DELINEATE THE RIGHTS conferred between the
legitimate and illegitimate children.

Our second speaker has evidently shown why it is not

beneficial to abolish Art. 992 mainly because it
encourages testacy, it upholds the sanctity and stability of
family and it is a reciprocal prohibition for both parties,
thus a fair law.
I am, therefore, contending on the non-practicability of the
proposition to give the illegitimate children the right to
inherit ab intestato from legitimate children and relatives of
the father or mother, and vice versa.

First, it is not practicable to abolish Art 992 since to do so

would be VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION STATED IN ARTICLE 15 SEC 1, that has
not only given the basis for the family as a basic
autonomous social institution but in addition MANDATES
the state to recognize the sanctity of family life and to
strengthen the family as a core.

It is inconceivable for the government to enact any law or

initiate measures that would break up or weaken the
family as a social unit. The application of Article 992 is
valid and constitutional since it intends to PREVENT AND
REDUCE THE FRICTION AND ANIMOSITY between the
families of illegitimate and legitimate.

The law already provides for the inheritance of an

illegitimate child from their parents, but to extend the same
right of inheritance towards the parent's relatives would
necessarily cause, at the very least, mixed feelings on the
part of the affected parties.

The presence of an illegitimate child already

CHALLENGES THE STABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF A
FAMILY - how much more when said illegitimate child
strains the financial and property partition and inheritance
of the legitimate family. Isn’t that creating more animosity
and disrupting the sanctity of family life? This is definitely
the very thing that our fundamental law wishes to protect.

Secondly, eliminating Article 992 DETERIORATES THE

VERY FUNCTION OF THE LAW – to balance and set
things in order. The article allows for the protection and
enforcement of the rights and order of inheritance. If it
were to be abolished, then situations wherein a party, so
very much removed from relation to the deceased, would
end up with an equivalent share as that of a direct relative
of the deceased.

This should not be the case, as people of varying degrees

of relations should not receive the same amount of
treatment. To do so otherwise would not only invalidate
the provisions on intestate succession and order, it would
also diminish and dilute family rights on their said
inheritance.

The abolition of Article 992 would LEAD TO THE

DISTORTION OF LAW ON SUCCESSION in its entirety,
entailing a full revision of those laws pertaining to
legitimate and illegitimate children’s successional rights,
not just nit-picking of a couple of articles by themselves.
Such is a LABORIOUS TASK for the legislature to act
upon considering the load of legislation already pressed
upon them.

Lastly, it would LEAD TO AN UNPRECEDENTED

SURGE OF CIVIL CASES on succession and property
rights bordering on illegitimacy of children from unmarried
couples born out of wedlock and therefore, would not only
hamper the ideal operability of the justice system but
likewise would not be deemed practical for the country in
general.

Therefore, there is a need to maintain the status quo

precisely because there is already an effective mechanism
provided by law to address the protection of both the
legitimate and illegitimate family.