There seems to be an apparent confusion within the Affirmative side as regards the actual meaning of the terms "ministerial" and "democratic," republican" as introduced in the Framework Agreement and Sec. 1, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, respectively. Simply put, "ministerial" means parliamentary -- the system of government in which, inter alia, the leadership of the state and in governmental activity is separated. This is in contrast with what we presently have: the presidential type. Democracy, on the other hand, means the rule of the people (or majority will). Further, to say a state is a republican is simply to mean that it does not espouse a monarchical governmental structure. There can be democracy and republicanism in a ministerial set-up, i.e. Singapore, South Korea. Both countries have (a) a non-monarch, directly-elected President to perform largely ceremonial duties and (b) an active Cabinet led by the Prime Minister as head of government to oversee day-to-day administration of state affairs who are (c) likewise drawn from an elected, representative Legislature. Mind you, this set-up is followed by many countries today. The head of state President, being a non-monarch, falls within the ambit of republicanism, and its direct election along with other officials, ie Members of Parliament, makes the system democratic. Finally, the separation of the ceremonial President, on one hand, and a Prime Minister leading the Cabinet as head of government, on the other, means it is ministerial or of parliamentary nature. Hence, there can exist no conflict between these sets of terminologies.
![งมหอย จับปลา มือเปล่า หาอยู่หากินแบบวีถีอีสานกับแก๊งเซียนหรั่ง ม่วนคัก! [ขอนแก่น] @Sianstudio](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JEJZg6N-AbU/mqdefault.jpg)
Debaters for Silliman Law:
Rochelle Rea Lu
Kenny Melody Hotingoy
Micah Stefan Dagaerag
:)
There seems to be an apparent confusion within the Affirmative side as regards the actual meaning of the terms "ministerial" and "democratic," republican" as introduced in the Framework Agreement and Sec. 1, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, respectively.
Simply put, "ministerial" means parliamentary -- the system of government in which, inter alia, the leadership of the state and in governmental activity is separated. This is in contrast with what we presently have: the presidential type.
Democracy, on the other hand, means the rule of the people (or majority will). Further, to say a state is a republican is simply to mean that it does not espouse a monarchical governmental structure.
There can be democracy and republicanism in a ministerial set-up, i.e. Singapore, South Korea. Both countries have (a) a non-monarch, directly-elected President to perform largely ceremonial duties and (b) an active Cabinet led by the Prime Minister as head of government to oversee day-to-day administration of state affairs who are (c) likewise drawn from an elected, representative Legislature. Mind you, this set-up is followed by many countries today.
The head of state President, being a non-monarch, falls within the ambit of republicanism, and its direct election along with other officials, ie Members of Parliament, makes the system democratic. Finally, the separation of the ceremonial President, on one hand, and a Prime Minister leading the Cabinet as head of government, on the other, means it is ministerial or of parliamentary nature.
Hence, there can exist no conflict between these sets of terminologies.
First speaker from Siliman University is soooo calm.
Proud of you ading Hendrix Bongalon!!More Power and God bless!!
The first speaker from SLU was so HAHAAHAHighblood?
#nohatejustlove
#proudlousianhere
Speaker from Silliman is calm.
Bad hair day. Tsk tsk
the host is hot!!!!!!!!
Square of