A Position Paper on War against Drugs

By: Janrey Rizada

I. Introduction

Drug is the best thing that will ruin your life. It is the hardest trouble of our government and the
worst problem of our country.“Say No to Drugs”, avoid drugs because it can destroy your own life
and can be destroy the life of others and also the community where you belong. We can prevent the
drug abuse in this country if we cooperate in our President Duterte campaign stop the drug dealers in
the Philippines. The Oplan Tokhang that gives the drug users a second chance to have a better life and
start a new life. War on drugs campaign by Duterteʹs Administration is a good plan and an active
campaign by the president. It is a better way to resolve the drug addiction and the crimes that are
involved in using illegal drugs. This paper shows the pros and cons of the issue on war against drugs. I
am agree of the campaign of Duterte on war against drugs because it is the only way to resolved the
drug addiction and to stop producing illegal drugs, as a whole, we observed that in previous
administration, the government has no effective solution to this problem. Now, its Duterteʹs
administration that slowly resolved the illegal drugs and will continue until the last day of Duterteʹs will.

II. Counter Arguments

When the war on drugs had been started, the Extra-Judicial Killings often referred to on the
archipelago by its acronym “EJK”. A poll released on April 20, 2017 by Social Weather Station found
that 73 percent of respondents are worried that they or someone they know could be fall on the on the
victim to an Extra-Judicial Killings.

It is not a valid evidence that the war on drugs have a bad sabotage to manage to kill the
unwanted or petty crimes and also no bad record persons. The countryʹs top broadcaster, ABS CBN,
reported in early August 2016 that 603 people had been killed since Duterte’s May election. Over
4,000 were arrested while over half a million drug users turned themselves into authorities.

The war on drugs of Duterte’s Administration was committing a Human Rights violation. Just
because on the issue on Extra-Judicial Killings that the Police and PDEA are committing crimes and
violating the Human Rights due to obeying the Presidentʹs order to kill the drug related persons. It does
mean that wars on drugs of Duterteʹs Administration are bad. It really needs a“walk your talk”
ordered by Duterte to accomplish the mission to kill the drug addicts who wants to fight the Police
during Oplan Tokhang.

It does not commit Human Rights violation because the police are properly have a warrant of
arrest and told carefully the drug addicts to surrender.
III. Arguments

Helps create a place that is drug free. A drug free area or community may seem impossible given
the present situation, but it is achievable as long as everyone does their share in the fight against drugs.
War on drugs should not only involve the government and local authorities, but also friends and family
of drug users or sellers.

Lessen drug-related crimes, when drug addicts will not have access to illegal substances, they
will not experience highs or hallucinations that will drive them to commit crimes. They would not need
to steal either so they can buy drugs. Put simply, without the pushers there will be little no users.

Despite international criticism of the Philippinesʹ deadly anti-drug war, the majority of Filipinos
continue to support president Duterteʹs campaign that killed thousands of mostly poor drug suspects.
The SWS survey, involving 1,200 adult respondents across the country, found in March that 78% were
satisfied with the administration’s performance in its campaign against illegal drugs, with 43% are very
satisfied and 35% are somewhat satisfied, 10 % were undecided, while only 12% were dissatisfied.

IV. Conclusion

Although there so many against of the Duterteʹs campaign on war on drugs, the majority of
Filipinos is still strong to support the campaign because it has a big changes to the country. It lessens the
drug related crimes. The big real evidence is that there are thousands of surrenderies of drug addicts
due because of the campaign of Duterte. Making a country and every barangay and community are drug
free. Government should improve the forces of Police during Oplan Tokhang to easily resolve the drug
addiction and help the surrenderies to start anew again. Duterte should maintain this campaign on war
on drugs to totally eliminate the illegal drugs.
 A Position Paper on the Death Penalty in the Philippines

By:Almer S. Cuerda

I. Introduction

Death penalty is a kind of capital punishment which refers to the sentence of death over a
person who has been decided by the government as guilty of committing capital crimes or offences.
Death penalty in the Philippines is stated on the Republic Act No. 7659 which is an act to impose the
death penalty for certain heinous crimes, amending for that purpose the revised penal laws, as
amended, other special penal laws, and for other purposes.

The death penalty can be traced back during the Pre-Spanish time where Filipinos although
infrequent, is already practicing it. The Spanish also imposed it on locals who rebelled against them and
it was retained during the American period. The Martial Law in 1965-1986, even though it was abolished
during Cory Aquinoʹs term, it was re-imposed when Ramos stepped into the presidency. It was also
present in Estrada and Arroyoʹs term.

This paper present the pro and con of death penalty in the Philippines, even though the death
penalty is important to minimize the persons who have got a very hard crimes, but death penalty
violates the person to live.

II. Counter Arguments

The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at
best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. In fact some criminologists maintain that
the death penalty has the opposite effect; that is society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty,
and this increases the likelihood of more murder.

Society has always used punishment is discourage would be criminals from unlawful action.
Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment
available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentence to death and
executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate
pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured
response. The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of
capital punishment. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that
demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives for
revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. The notion of an eye for an eye, or
a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never endorsed.

When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored,
society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murdererʹs life restores the balance and
allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punishment in
kind.

Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper
to take "eye for an eye" and a life. Offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law,
and that is the death penalty.

There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased
safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions
have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the
prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in
the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However,
the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty. Besides, many of the claims of
innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities.

The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing
can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many
mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, at least 121 people have been
released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. For every eight people executed,
we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics
represent an in tolerate risk of executing the innocent. Our capital punishment system is unreliable: two
thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors.

III. My Argument

Death penalty shows justice. There will be justice when we punish the guilty. It shows quality, on
T.V I have seen people being interviewed because one or some of their relatives died. There are crying
for help and wanting justice for the death of their loved ones. I know for sure that justice can only be the
solution for them to be relieved. A serious crimes must have serious penalty and that is death. Justice
can dignify a person.

According to Bedau H (1982), Most people have a natural fear of death- itʹs a trait man have to
think about what will happen before we act, if we don’t think it consciously, we will think about it
unconsciously. Think, if every murdered who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate would be
very low because no one like to die. We cannot do this, but if the justice system can make it more swift
and severe, we could change the laws to make capital punishment faster and make an appeals a shorter
process. The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of potential victims
who are at stake.

IV. Conclusion

Death penalty is one of the debatable in the criminal justice system. Today, there are many pros
and cons to this death penalty issues. However, if people weight the argument properly, and have
empathy for the victims, they will be more inclined to favor capital punishment. As a matter of fact,
most people in the Philippines today are in favor of it. But we need more states to enforce the death
penalty.

Position Paper on: The LGBT Rights

By: Maybelyn B. Cabanog

I. INTRODUCTION

This issue takes the sides of pros in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) rights, in
order to draw attention of the Human Rights Council on LGBT rights in the Philippines. This claim is
based on the media reports, the web, research and records of the Philippines Government.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that everyone is equal and entitled to some
rights freedom, regardless their race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other status. But the
violence and discrimination of sexual orientation and gender identity have been happening around the
world. LGBT too often find that their schooling experience is marred by bullying, discrimination and in
some cases, physical and sexual assaults. These abuses can cause deep and lasting harm and curtail
studentʹs right to education, protected under Philippine and International Law.

This paper entails the violence and discrimination of anti-LGBT community and the provision of
equal rights to the LGBT community in the Philippines.

II. Counter Arguments

Over the years mostly right wing and religions nuts have come up with arguments against the LGBT
community, some arguments include“Being LGBT is sinful” and“Being an LGBT is a mental illness”.
These arguments have no scientific or historical basis and this type of intolerance can lead to LGBT
people to commit suicide or to major mental health issues. This article will cover arguments against the
LGBT community and refute them in academic and scientific as well as somewhat religious manner.

According to the religious anti-LGBT right, “Being LGBT is going against God’s plan.”
However, if homosexuality is against God’s plan, why did God allow homosexuality to exist in the first
place? And they also stated that “God hates LGBT.” However, Jesus stated in (John 13:34) A new
command I give you: Love one another.” This clearly means that people are supposed to love and care
about each other despite differences. And according to the scientific and social argument, “LGBT
people need to be sent to a mental hospital by force.” However, being LGBT is not considered mental
illness anymore (as per current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Second, being
different does not affect you in any way. Finally, that would be a civil rights violation. Plus, the Bill of
Rights allow for freedom of expression.

American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have dropped

homosexuality and transsexualism as mental illness through up to date scientific research and protest.

III. My Arguments
LGBT Rights are Human Rights, therefore we should first consider:

 Access to the same freedom. There is no reason why a LGBT should be denied the same rights
and freedoms as their straight counterparts. Whether it is same sex marriage on the right to
adopt a child, LGBT rights supporters believe that it is time to stop withholding basic freedoms
from any group of Filipino citizens. And the Bill of Rights allow of freedom of expression, where
considering of sexual orientation and gender identity of LGBT.

 Improvement of quality of life for their sexual orientation is no better than denying them equal
rights due to their race. It is time for people to ask themselves whether they want to live in a
society that marginalizes citizens and make them feel unwelcome. LGBT might can help to
restore their sense of belonging and allow them to feel more comfortable.

 Better society to live in. Prejudice is taught in the home. Children do not emerge from the womb
with the dislike for anyone, they are taught how to hate others by prejudiced parents. If LGBT
right become an accepted part of our society, this reduces the chances that are children will
discriminate against the LGBT community. LGBT community give our society a chance to grow
and improve in ways that simply over not available to previous generations.

IV. CONCLUSION

LGBT rights are Human Rights and equality is for all the people. However, there are still some
people who withstand with the cons, which argue with the pro side, who refers to discriminate the LGBT
community and remove their rights from being a human. Equality is for all. No exception, just equal.

LGBT people are of large help to our community, it is but fair that we let them enjoy the same
rights as we have because they are people like us. They should not be denied of things that we enjoy,
especially because these things will no harm us anyway. Let us love our LGBT brothers and sisters. Let us
be modern and think outside the box. Let us be equal and fair to mankind. Let’s stop the
discrimination and violence to LGBT community.
 A Position Paper on Same Sex Marriage

by: Erika Del Rio

I. Introduction

Same sex marriage is a controversy that is part of the family rules issue and is related to
homosexuality and marriage disputes. Same sex marriage is very devise topic which generate a lot of
debate. First of all I am confident that homosexuality is inborn behaviour which means that it is not a
choice. Either you are not a gay. Second there is a strong argument that marriage is a relation between
man and woman for the purpose having gay. On the other hand there are my marriage without
children. Therefore I consider the letter argument as nonsense to put up briefly. I am strongly convinced
that gay should have the same right to be married couple as anybody else there is no reasonable reason
for banning same sex marriage.

In this position paper explain the important about the same sex marriage both of Pro and Con.

II. Counter Argument

Denying same people the option to marry is discrimination and creates a second class of
citizens.

On July 25, 2014 Miami-Dade County Circuit court judge Sarah Zabel ruled Floridas gay married
ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban serves only to hurt discriminate to deprive same sex
couples and their families of equal dignity to label and treat them as second class citizens and to deem
then unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of an society.

The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and woman
in upholding gay marriage bans Kentucky, Michigan, Ohoi and Tennessee on Nov.6 2014,6 th US District
Court of appeals judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote that marriage has long been social institution defined by
relationship between when and woman. So long defined the tradition is measured in millennia not
citizens or decade.

Same sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married
couples.

There are 1,138 benefits, right and protection available to married couple in federal law alone
according to a general accounting office assessment made in 2004 benefits only available to married
couple include hospital visitation during an illness the option of filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax
between access to family to family health coverage and bereavement leave and inheritance Drexel
University school of law Imagine three people-Nancy Bill and Tam-Nancy a woman can marry Tom Nancy
can do something that Bill cannot simply because Nancy a woman and Bill is an man.
 Marriage for precaution and should not be extended to same sex couple become they cannot
produce children together.

Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage of producing and rising
children adult gratification. A California Supreme court from 1859 Stated that the first purpose of
Matrimony by the laws of nature and society is procreation Nobel-Prize-Winning Philosopher Bertrand
Russell that stated sexual relation become important to society and her biological father.

The concept of traditional marriage has change our time and the definition of marriage as
always being between one woman and man is historically inaccurate.

Harvard University Historian Nancy F. Cott stated that until two centuries ago, monogamous
household were anything and were found any in Western Europe and little settlements in north.
America by gamy has been widespread though history according to Brown University political scientist
Rose M. Dermatt.

Gay marriage will accelerate the assimilation of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture to
the determent of the homosexual community.

The gay community has created its own vibrant culture by reducing the differences in
opportunities and experience between gay and heterosexual people this unique culture may cease to
exist. Lesbian activist M.V.Lee Badgett,PhD Director of the Center for public policy and Administration at
the University of Massachusults America stated that for Mary gay activist marriage means adopting
heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively.

III. My Arguments

Allowing gay couples to wed could further weaken the institution marriage.

Traditional marriage is already threatened with high discourse rates (between 40% and 50%
and 40%) of babies were born to unmarried mother in 2012 former US Senator (R-PA) and presidential
candidates Rick Santorum Stated that a legalization of gay marriage would further underline an
institution that is essential to the well- being of children and our society.

Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural.

J.Matt Barber Associate Dean For online program at liberty University School of law stated that
Every individual engaged in the homosexuality identify they know intuitively that what they’re doing
immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive yet they thirst for that affirmation. A 2003 set of guidelines
signed by Pope John Paul II stated; There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions
to be in way similar or marriage and family . Marriage is holy while homosexual acts go against the
natural law former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee stated in
Oct. 2014 that gay marriage is inconsistent with nature and natureʹs law.

Marriage is an outmoded oppressive institution that should be weakened not expanded.

 LGBT (lesbian,gay,bisexual,and transgender) activist collective Against collective marriage apes
hetero privilege increases by perpetuating a system which deems married beings more worthy of the
basic like health care and economic rights the leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in
July 1969 We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the
system.The family is the microcosm of oppression. Self-describe queer activity Anders Zanichkowsky
stated in June 2013 that the campaign for gay marriage intentionally and maliciously erases and
excludes so many queer people and cultures particularly trans and gender non-conforming people poor
queer people in non-traditional families marriage thinks non-married people are deviant and not truly
deserving of civil rights.

IV. Conclusion

The movement of polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of sex couple as a
springboard for futher de-institutionalazing marriage James C. Danbson Founder and Chairman of Focus
on the family predicted in 2005 that legalizing same sex marriage ‘’marriage between daddres and
little girls and marriage between a man and his donkey. There are absolutely no ground for considering
homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to Godʹs plan for marriage and
family.The leader of the Gray liberation front in New York said in July 1969.Ive expose the institution of
marriage as one of the most insidious.