DebSoc Sets 2025 Town Hall, kindles wit and ardor
Written by Heidi Nique and Joana Marie Garcia
Photo by Michaella Ruiz
The University of Makati-School of Law (UMak-SOL)’s Debate and Moot Court Society (DebSoc) launched its 2025 Town Hall Debate tournament entitled “Law League: Armoring Up the Legal Minds,” on September 25 at the Health and Physical Sciences Building, in celebration of National Law Week.
UMak-SOL Dean Jord Jharoah B. Valenton opened the tournament by underscoring how debate helps a law student think critically, analyze thoroughly, speak bravely, and listen thoughtfully, especially in light of the pressing issues pervading the country, by quoting Edward Burke who stated that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Dean Valenton likewise accentuated that debate is not only an abstract exercise, but a life-changing activity that will catalyze a movement towards the protection of the indigent and the marginalized.
Jasper Franz T. Mapa, DebSoc’s Education and Training Committee Minister, proceeded to discuss the tournament’s mechanics by outlining the rules, matchups, and debate format that participants must strictly adhere to.
Four debate teams were split into Debate Rooms 506 and 511 after having entered their vetoes on the Motions for Persons and Family Relations (1st round), Ethics and Philosophy (2nd round), and the Constitution (final round).
Room 506
FIRST ROUND – The motion for Persons and Family Relations addressed whether the Supreme Court should better decide on the constitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, highlighting the juxtaposition of socio-cultural modernities, individual civil and political liberties, as well as the probable emergence of a legal crisis via the overhaul of substantial provisions of other laws anchored on the opposite-sex union.
Kyla Dianne Hernandez, Rex Jasper Dumagpi, and Dominic Mindaro (JD3) of the Opposition emerged as the winners against Michael P. Siega (JD1B), Roxanne E. Agbayani (JD1A), and Mark Jullian P. Ortañez (JD1A) of the Affirmative.
SECOND ROUND – The focal point of the motion for Ethics and Philosophy is the removal of the Statute of Limitations, where the Affirmative side (composed of JD3’s Hernandez, Dumagpi, and Mindaro) successfully clinched the round by initially qualifying the lifting of prescription to encompass only criminal transgressions that involve heinous crimes, to which the Opposition (composed of JD1B’s Charleton Royce G. Yu and Ramon Victoriano D. Saura, alongside JD1A’s Elise Jazriel L. Soriano) failed to promptly contravert.
Although Hernandez, Dumagpi, and Mindaro (JD3) cannot advance to the finals as they served only as members of a swing team filling in for an absent one, they nonetheless demonstrated the level of competency that UMak-SOL and DebSoc strive to cultivate—setting a standard that new members can aspire to reach.
Room 511
FIRST ROUND – The motion debated under Persons and Family Relations was whether any person, upon reaching the age of majority, has the right to change their given name once. According to Chair Adjudicator, Samuel Psalm John M. Unabia, the round centered on the pragmatics of changing one’s name, specifically whether the policy would be practical or susceptible to abuse.
Representing the Affirmative, Yu (JD1B), Janelle Ria S. Manalo (later on substituted by Saura; JD1B), and Soriano (JD1A) secured the win by clearly establishing valid and reasonable grounds for allowing individuals to change their names when they reach the age of majority–arguments that the Opposition was unable to successfully refute.
Though the first round was deemed successful, Minority Adjudicator Joshua Raphael R. Aquiler observed that it could have been more engaging had there been stronger clashes in the arguments between the two Houses.
SECOND ROUND – This debate room also perused the Ethics and Philosophy motion on the removal of Statute of Limitations, where the Opposition (composed of Siega, Agbayani, and Ortañez) prevailed over the Affirmative formed by Joshua E. Morcisa (JD1B), Joshua C. Parocha (JD1A), and Franco Raphael L. Tido (JD1A).
Room 901 (Convening Hall)
FINAL ROUND – The Constitutional motion probed into the power of Congress to conduct congressional inquiry i ood.
Siega (JD1B), Agbayani (JD1A) and Ortañez (JD1A) of the Opposition nabbed the crown by asserting that the assailed conduct of inquiry squarely puts forward public participation, deterrence of wrongdoings, congressional oversight, promotion of government accountability, and strengthening of checks and balances, regardless of being “politicized”, as it is verily political in nature.
To conclude the celebrated event, awardees were formally recognized and bemedaled. Winning Team: Siega (JD1B), Agbayani (JD1A) and Ortañez (JD1A); Finals Best Speaker: Mark Jullian P. Ortañez (JD1A); Finals Best Interpellator: Michael P. Siega (JD1B); Top Five Best Speakers - Elimination Rounds: Mark Jullian P. Ortañez (JD1A), best speaker; Joshua E. Morcisa (JD1B), second; Michael P. Siega (JD1B), third; Joshua C. Parocha (JD1A), fourth; and Elise Jazriel L. Soriano, fifth; Top Three Best Adjudicators: Aira Cyrelle D.C. Juanson (JD1A), best adjudicator; Kristine Estela A. Hilario (JD1A), second; and Andrea A. Abanes (JD1B), third.
