Debate arguments

Below are the arguments of each speaker:

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1st affirmative speaker: John Michael Villanueva

1. There is a necessity to pass this bill in order to comply with the

constitutional mandates and international obligations of promoting the
right to health.
2. There is a need to distinguish between the ill and the criminals, which
can only be done by this bill.

2nd affirmative speaker: Pearl Simbulan

1. Legalizing medical marijuana is the only and the best comprehensive

approach to health. What we think in legalizing medical marijuana is
that we provide the optimal care: [providing] a range of options that a
physician who is in the best position to make these decisions can do
for the patient.
2. Because we illegalized blanketly marijuana, research on these kinds
of things stopped, and it has become harder for us to discover even
better uses of marijuana.

3rd affirmative speaker: Patrick Vincent Cocabo

"The question should not be whether marijuana is good or bad, but rather,
how can we control it? What is the best strategy to save lives?"

1. Government regulation is important.

2. The bill provides an important mechanism of checks and balances of
citizen accountability.
 UST LAW SCHOOL

1st negative speaker: Marie Sybil Tropicales

1. Medical marijuana should not be legalized because at present, its

detriments outweigh its benefits. Medical marijuana is not necessary
for legislation because essentially, it is not a cure in itself.

2nd negative speaker: John Paul Fabella

"The contentious documented benefits of medical marijuana cannot

outweigh its adverse effects to the government and society."

1. On a socio-political level: Legalization sends a wrong message to

public, especially to the youth, that marijuana is medically benevolent
and not a harmful drug. The state cannot afford to risk our society to
the dangers of increased marijuana use by implying a stance that it is
not harmful.
2. Legalizing medical marijuana is not advantageous to the government.
o Documented benefits are highly contentious at the moment and
inconclusive.
o It undermines law enforcement by forcing officers to distinguish
medical users and recreational users.

3rd negative speaker: Jackielyn Bana

1. Is government ready for this? There are too much gray areas in the
policy implementation at present, that no matter how noble the
objective of the law is, that no matter how flawless its features are, it
all go to waste because of the corrupt implementation of the laws.
o Example: Regulating tobacco, alocohol, sleeping pills, and
prescription drugs
2. This country has a problem with strict and faithful implementation of
government policies and regulations.
 o What guarantee do we have that a seriously addictive drug
could be regulated when simple regulations on tobacco and
alcohol products prove to be impossible to impose?
o Once marijuana is legalized, there is no possibility of regulating
it.

Adjudicators comment

The adjudicators welcomed the law students' interest in discussing the

advantages and disadvantages of legalizing medical marijuana in the
Philippines.

"I'm happy that the youth are taking positions especially on an issue which
is very, very real in your sector," Tiquia said after all interpellations were
done. She lauded the bill for being "very rigid," and disagreed with UST's
Fabella that regulating marijuana means legitimizing it.

Melgar noted how "selective" the bill is on legalizing marijuana only for
medical use.

"All the public knows about marijuana is the stereotype, that it's all for
getting high, and nobody shines a light on the few instances where it is the
most compassionate for children who have epilepsy, for patients who have
cancer," Melgar added.

HB 4477 is still pending with the House committee on health. Albano said it
is possible to enact the bill during the 16th Congress, but admitted the
probability is "iffy" and will depend "on how fast they will settle the issue on
the BBL (Bangsamoro Basic Law)."