Law Related Studies: Practicing My Attorney Skills

Law Related Studies is a prerequisite subject for the Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Social Studies, it was indeed a very challenging subject as it is very technical especially talking about the 1987 Constitution, The Family Code of the Philippines, The Katarungang Pambarangay Law, Local Government Code, Criminal Law, and so much more related topics. As we are about to end the first semester, our final output would be a mock trial, but the situation did not permit us to do a mock trial due to time constraints, and so our instructor decided to have a debate instead.

Each group which is composed of six members are then given a topic to debate on by our instructor. The instructions along with the topics included the following:

Please memorize your scripts (glancing at your notes is fine while talking). Three members are for affirmative and the other three members for the group is negative.
Be in corporate attire.
Read about the Oxford-Oregon Debate.
The teacher will pick the Best Debater, Best Rebuttalist and Best Group in Debate at the end of the activity.

Group 1 - Whether or not the provisions of RA 9262: the Legislature should define include LBGTQ on the victims of VAWC.
Group 2 - Whether or not the lowering age of criminal liability is unconstitutional.
Group 3 - Whether or not plea bargaining of RA 9165 is unconstitutional.
Group 4 - Whether or not consent should not be irrelevant and immaterial to the crime of rape.
Group 5 - Whether or not death penalty should be imposed to the crime of murder.

The topics are wheeled, and the topic number four which is whether or not consent should not be irrelevant and immaterial to the crime of rape goes to our group. The topic was really challenging, but we have to defend our side. I am on the negative side, so my stand would be to make consent immaterial and irrelevant to the crime of rape. I then researched jurisprudence and court decisions that will support my stand. The debate day is fast approaching and I have to sum up all my research and should come up to a firm and a well constructed stand which is not refutable. Here, I will be sharing to you my script for the rest of the debate.

Your honor, ladies and gentlemen a pleasant afternoon once again. Making consent irrelevant and immaterial to the crime of rape simplifies legal proceedings. By focusing on the act itself rather than the issue of consent, it could potentially streamline legal processes and lead to more straightforward determinations of guilt or innocence. And that is the overall beneficiality of making consent irrelevant and immaterial to the crime of rape.

In addition to prove our stand, consent is not applicable to all circumstances surrounding the crime of rape for a number of reasons:
First, did you know the case of People of the Philippines vs. Melford Brillo y De Guzman? Let me enlighten you.

Consent there in that case was considered irrelevant and immaterial. This indicates that consent is unknown, not established with certainty, or gained through questionable circumstances, because of drunkenness and unconsciousness of the victim, when the rape took place.

Thus, even with or without consent the crime has been committed. Article 266-A of the RPC provides that a Rape is committed, (1)By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: Which sub section b states that (b)When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious.

In the described circumstance where the offended party is deprived of reason or either unconscious, consent is likely considered irrelevant or immaterial, as the individual is unable to give informed consent.

Secondly, we also have to consider psychological factors. The mental state of individuals involved should be a primary consideration, especially that of the victim. The accused should be barred from using the defense of consent in this matter at all cost.

Let's say for example the victim is proved to be insane and has serious mental condition which make her/him mentally incapacitated to decide for himself, and that the accused with all its sanity asked the consent of the victim, thus the victim nodded yes, and that there it happened the case of, "when yes means no". Makes sense?
Isn't that unacceptable and unethical? Moreover, a more nuanced understanding of the mental states of the parties involved is essential for a comprehensive legal framework.

In conclusion, I will repeat this, removing the relevance and materiality of consent in the crime of rape simplifies the legal proceedings.
By directing attention toward the actual crime rather than delving into the intricacies of consent, there exists the potential to streamline legal processes.

This approach could facilitate more straightforward determinations of guilt or innocence, as it emphasizes the objective evaluation of the act itself.
This shift in focus aims to mitigate complexities associated with consent issues, thereby contributing to a more efficient and transparent adjudication system.

With this script I was able to grab the award of "1st Best Debater", and my group in the negative side won the award of "3rd in Best Debate Presentation".

As a reward we were given certificates for our participation to the debate plus our major awards, our instructor also gave as a token of appreciation for a job well done, and the most beautiful surprise our instructor gave us is the 1.1 grade for those who made to grab major awards.

My heart was really filled with so much joy as my sleepless nights and headaches doing the research all paid off. I am also thankful to our Almighty God for the wisdom he gave and to our instructor for giving me this opportunity to experience becoming an Attorney, even if it is just a simulation. I hope you enjoy reading, and gain some insights to my ideas in this blog. Cheers for the dreams we commit! Have a good day ahead!