Scribd
Upload
76 views2 pages

Presidential Intel Gathering Defense

The document summarizes arguments made in defense of a president receiving intelligence information from foreign sources. It argues that [1] receiving such information is not a deliberate violation of the constitution, but is instead compatible with protecting national security from threats like terrorism. It further argues that [2] the right to privacy is not absolute and exceptions can be made for issues of public order and national security, such as known plots by communist rebels to overthrow the government. Finally, it argues that [3] receiving foreign intelligence is consistent with the president's constitutional role as commander-in-chief and chief executive, and that all presidents have both the duty and authority to counter threats through intelligence gathering from local and foreign sources.

Uploaded by

Bernice Joana L. Piñol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
76 views2 pages

Presidential Intel Gathering Defense

The document summarizes arguments made in defense of a president receiving intelligence information from foreign sources. It argues that [1] receiving such information is not a deliberate violation of the constitution, but is instead compatible with protecting national security from threats like terrorism. It further argues that [2] the right to privacy is not absolute and exceptions can be made for issues of public order and national security, such as known plots by communist rebels to overthrow the government. Finally, it argues that [3] receiving foreign intelligence is consistent with the president's constitutional role as commander-in-chief and chief executive, and that all presidents have both the duty and authority to counter threats through intelligence gathering from local and foreign sources.

Uploaded by

Bernice Joana L. Piñol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Your Honors, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

A few rebuttals on some of the key arguments of the affirmative:

They are invoking violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law, which, if


proven, is a violation of the people’s right to privacy of communication, and
therefore would amount to culpable violation of the Constitution.

But your Honors, ladies and gentlemen, we want to emphasize that


"culpable violation of the Constitution" implies a deliberate intent and such
degree of perversity as would transgress the very foundations of a
constitutional democracy. But this is not the case. The mere RECEIPT by
the President of Intel information does not, in itself, undermine the
foundations of our Constitution. In fact, it is compatible with the duty of
the State to protect life, liberty, and property from acts of terrorism, to
condemn terrorism as inimical to the national security of the country, as it
is a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the
law of nations.

The affirmative is invoking the right to privacy of communication, but


this right is not absolute. An exception to its inviolability is when public
order or national security is at stake. And Your Honors, it is public
knowledge that the CPP-NPA and other communist rebels have been
plotting to overthrow the current government. In fact, they have long been
proudly communicating their intention to the media. The President knows
that, the Defense Secretary knows that, WE KNOW THAT. THESE ARE
FACTS, ladies and gentlemen. Can the affirmative still say that this matter
of national security is not compelling enough?

Now to proceed with my constructive.

Your Honors, the MERE RECEIPT by the President of intelligence


information from foreign sources is NOT an impeachable offense, because
it is the duty of the President, as Commander in Chief, to defend his Office,
to protect our soldiers, our people, the government, and the nation as a
whole.

The intelligence information he receives can be invaluable —


providing warning of brewing trouble, identifying and disrupting threats
before they materialize, and gaining insight into suspected terrorist leaders
and rebels.

Consistent with historical practice, we even have agencies which


function under the Office of the President, that are authorized to engage in
intel-sharing with the international intelligence community.
We have the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA), which
was originally created in 1949 under President Elpidio Quirino, and further
strengthened by virtue of Admin. Order No. 68 under President Gloria
Arroyo.

The NICA has principal authority to integrate and address broader


national intelligence concerns, including counterintelligence,
counterterrorism, and foreign intelligence.

AO No. 68 even provides for an Intelligence Sharing System,


which establishes and strengthens liaison work between the government
and its foreign counterpart intelligence and security organizations.

Based on these precedents, Your Honors, it is thus clear that


Presidents, both in the Philippines and in most countries in the world, have
long directed the acquisition of intel information, both from local and
foreign sources, pursuant to their constitutional authority to conduct
foreign relations, and to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities as
Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

A plan to destabilize the government can be considered an act of


terrorism as it aims at the destruction of the democratic bases of society,
and a legitimately constituted Government.

Thus, REGARDLESS OF WHO MAY BE SITTING IN THE PRESIDENCY,


he has the duty, by law and by the nature of his Office, to counter any
threats, plots or attacks against the government. And with that duty
necessarily comes the authority to receive intel information, be it from local
or foreign sources.

You might also like