NON-PRACTICABILITY

Public office IS a public trust. However such trust^ should not be

made a vehicle to violate personal rights. Such trust^ should not be used to
circumvent and make inutile existing laws and guidelines.
Our current issue is that, whether or not, all candidates for President
and Vice President SHOULD sign a waiver allowing the public to scrutinize
their bank accounts.
Your honors, the affirmative side seemed to have forgotten the ruling
Enriquez vs. Enriquez where the SC enunciated that the word shall, in
this tense should carries with it a mandatory character. A rule with a
mandatory nature brings with it subsequent repercussions. And these^
repercussions have no teeth without a law to back it up.
Your honors, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to reinforce my
colleagues arguments and elucidate to this body that the issue at hand is
not at all practicable based on two points.
1.

Mandatorily requiring this from candidates would make inutile the

2.

voluntary nature of the waiver under Bank Secrecy Laws

Such would impose an additional obligation, not only to the
candidates, but also to the government

We are well aware that the banking industry is imbued with public
interest, thus the legislative

(has fervently)

imposes strict laws to ensure its

protection. Bank secrecy law is one form of this protection: safeguarding

the privacy, and providing absolute confidentiality of bank accounts.
However, as we know, bank secrecy may be disregarded if the
account owner would voluntarily waive their right to such protection.
Emphasis on the word VOLUNTARILY. There are of course other
exceptions, but if there is no proper qualification to a unilateral review,
consent of the account holder is ABSOLUTELY necessary.
Hence, mandatorily requiring candidates to allow their accounts to
public scrutiny would defeat the voluntary nature of waving the protection
afforded to account holders. Such obligation would not only infringe on
ones right to privacy but also infringe on the right against self-incrimination.
Possibly incriminating not only the account holders but also all others who
may have made transaction to and from said accounts. Violating numerous
rights of countless parties. Making a mockery of our bank secrecy laws^,
and making such laws inutile.
As to my second point, requiring the waiver from candidates would
impose additional constraints to them. Where campaigning candidates
would need to communicate to all banks where they have accounts. And
when said accounts are made public^, nothing would stop the general
public from scrutinizing any or all transactions^, possibly to merely harass^
and inconvenience^ the already busy candidates.

Moreover^, it would not only be the candidate who would be

burdened but also the government itself. If such mandatory obligation is to
have any gravity to the candidates, then noncompliance should have their
subsequent repercussions. Hence, one could safely assume^ that a
legislative act^ would be needed^ in order to do so^. Which would not be
practicable at all, especially if there is no significant necessity to do so^.
And there isnt! The SALN, the Income Tax Returns, and the AMLA have
already existing guidelines, which sufficiently provide transparency of
officials^, provide transparency of income^, and give alerts on suspicious
transactions and transactions of politically sensitive persons^, respectively.
The fact of the matter is that, even if candidates concede to open
their accounts to the public, such would not eliminate the possibility that
they may still have some hidden wealth, unknown to the public, especially
to the government.
Your honors, (ladies and gentlemen,) the matter is simple. There is no
practical reason to change the current status quo. If a candidate would
voluntarily allow their account to be publicly scrutinized, then the electorate
should embed greater confidence to them, and ultimately chose to vote for
them. However, for candidates who would not concede, the people should
then exercise due caution on those candidates, and ponder^ if they are at
all worthy of the publics trust.
Should these candidates allow their accounts to public scrutiny? Yes.
Should they be compelled to do so? Certainly not.

INTERPOLATION
Mr. Speaker, are you single? Oh, so youre married?
Hypothetically speaking if you were to get married Mr. Speaker, wouldnt
you rather have your partner not keep any secrets from you before you
make such a commitment?
o Of course not.
But would you have any assurance that before or during your married
life, there are no such secrets between the both of you?
However, what we are relying on is trusting the other person, correct?
Moving forward. Mr. Speaker, we can assume^ that a transparent
candidate is a candidate with more integrity, are they not?
However, does this transparency give a 100% assurance that P&VP
candidates do not have any hidden bank accounts other than those they
declare?
Yet we still trust them and vote for them, especially those who allow their
known accounts to be publicly scrutinized, do we not?

Mr. Speaker, do you too have a girlfriend?

Are you loyal to your girlfriend?
Assuming that your girlfriend is a jealous type and she suspect you of
cheating on her because of texts you receive from other women. Do you
think that is a reasonable conclusion Mr. Speaker?
o NO, it is of course not reasonable. Thus at times it is better to
hide your texts from your partner to avoid unnecessary conflict.
The same goes for the candidates, exposing all transaction in

their accounts would ensue the same effect, to be harassed by

their opposition for trivial reasons or transactions.

The BSL has exception allowing unilateral review of accounts, right?

Specifically pertaining to commission of specific crimes, correct?
But if there is no violation involving said exceptions, then a waiver is necessary, is it not?

Mr. Speaker, waiver under the BLS is voluntary in nature, yes?

However, currently, is there a punishment for candidates who do not
allow their accounts to be publicly scrutinized?
Yet you still are of the position that the candidates should only be merely
convinced to sign the waiver, is that correct?
However is there any assurance, being of a voluntary nature, that
candidate, all candidates would do so?
o Of course not Mr. Speaker. What then is the use of the
voluntariness of the waiver? This is a concrete example of our
free will. We can choose to do or not to do.
Mr. Speaker since, per your team, we should merely try to convince
candidates because it would give said candidates advantage, correct?
However if all candidates were to sign, then there is no more advantage
that can you offer these candidates against their opponents, am I right?
If candidates were to sign said waiver, can we truly know that said
candidates would not have any other hidden bank accounts?
Mr. Speaker, for a candidate, if revealing their bank accounts would be
more prejudicial to them, do you think they would still opt to do so?
o Of course not.
o Mr. Speaker the presumption under the law is always
innocence. Let us not mislead this body.
o Also there are a multitude of reasons why something may be
prejudicial to a person. But we should not delve on that.

 Imagine a known akyat bahay Mr. Speaker, living in a world where theft
is illegal however there is no punishment, no imprisonment for such
crime. Do you think these thieves would stop stealing?
o Of course not Mr. Speaker. Your honors, the same goes for any
other rule or law, if there are no repercussions then there is
close to no assurance that such would law be followed or such
acts will be done or not done.