Opening Statement:
Honorable adjudicators, esteemed opponents, and the audience, we, from
the Affirmative side, firmly believe that deregulating confidential funds for
law enforcement and security agencies is not only necessary but also vital
for ensuring the safety and security of our nation amidst evolving threats.
Today, we present arguments that emphasize the critical need for efficiency,
operational secrecy, and adaptability to safeguard our people and
sovereignty.
Key Arguments
1. Enhanced Operational Efficiency
Claim: Deregulation eliminates bureaucratic delays that hinder the
immediate deployment of resources for urgent security operations.
Evidence:
Philippine Context: Cases of delayed fund approvals have slowed counter-
terrorism efforts, as noted by law enforcement leaders.
Example: In 2020, a delayed disbursement of intelligence funds reportedly
hampered anti-drug operations in Visayas, allowing syndicates to evade
capture.
Impact: Deregulated funds empower agencies to act swiftly and decisively,
addressing threats before they escalate.
2. Protection of National Security Through Operational Secrecy
Claim: Current regulations that mandate full audits risk exposing sensitive
operations and compromising national security.
Evidence:
Local Case: In 2018, a leak during the auditing process of a confidential fund
allowed a criminal syndicate to dismantle their operations before law
enforcement could act.
Global Parallel: Countries like Israel protect their intelligence fund allocations
to avoid exposing covert missions.
Impact: Deregulating funds ensures that operational details remain
classified, preserving the element of surprise critical to law enforcement
success.
3. Adaptability to Emerging Threats
Claim: The rapidly evolving nature of threats, such as cybercrime, terrorism,
and transnational crime, requires flexibility in resource allocation.
Evidence:
Statistics: According to the PNP, cybercrime incidents increased by 51% from
2021 to 2023, requiring swift financial responses to acquire necessary
technology and manpower.
Example: During the pandemic, increased online scams revealed the need
for rapid intelligence shifts, which rigid fund regulations delayed.
Impact: Deregulating funds allows law enforcement to stay ahead of criminal
innovations, ensuring public safety.
4. International Best Practices Align with Deregulation
Claim: Countries with robust security frameworks successfully implement
deregulated confidential funds without compromising accountability.
Evidence:
U.S. Practice: Agencies like the CIA operate with deregulated funds under
classified congressional oversight.
ASEAN Examples: Malaysia and Singapore implement flexible fund
mechanisms that enhance security operations.
Impact: Following these models strengthens the Philippines’ ability to
address national and international security challenges effectively.
5. Stronger Oversight Without Public Disclosure
Claim: Deregulation does not mean the absence of accountability—it means
shifting to independent, secure oversight mechanisms.
Evidence:
Existing Models: The Anti-Terrorism Council and classified congressional
briefings can monitor fund usage without exposing operational details.
Case Study: Australia’s parliamentary oversight of classified security funds
ensures both accountability and operational integrity.
Impact: Deregulation coupled with classified oversight enhances efficiency
while maintaining transparency in appropriate channels.
Closing Statement:
In conclusion, deregulating confidential funds is a strategic necessity for the
Philippines. It ensures swift and effective responses to threats, preserves
operational secrecy, and aligns with international best practices, all while
maintaining oversight in ways that do not compromise security. We urge the
panel to recognize the critical importance of this motion to our nation’s
safety and stability. Thank you.
Interpellation
Negative Side (Interpellation Questions) with Affirmative Side's Responses
1. On Enhanced Operational Efficiency
o Question: You claim that deregulation eliminates bureaucratic delays. However,
couldn't the same be achieved by streamlining existing processes rather than
removing regulations entirely?
Answer: Streamlining processes is indeed one approach, but it often
requires extensive legislative and procedural changes that take years to
implement. Deregulation provides an immediate solution, ensuring urgent
needs are addressed without delay.
o Question: How do you ensure that the speed of fund disbursement does not come
at the cost of accountability and proper use?
Answer: Accountability will not be sacrificed. Confidential funds can still
be monitored through secure oversight bodies, such as congressional
intelligence committees, without compromising the immediacy required
for national security.
2. On Operational Secrecy
o Question: Is it not possible to maintain secrecy through selective disclosure to
trusted oversight bodies rather than resorting to full deregulation?
Answer: Selective disclosure is already part of the process, but current
regulations often require broader audits that inadvertently expose sensitive
information. Deregulation ensures that only the necessary authorities
handle classified details, minimizing leaks.
o Question: How do you address the risk of funds being used for non-security-
related purposes if audits are removed?
Answer: Deregulation does not mean the absence of audits—it means
shifting audits to secure, classified channels. Agencies will still be held
accountable to oversight bodies capable of verifying the proper use of
funds without public disclosure.
3. On Adaptability to Emerging Threats
o Question: You argue that deregulation allows flexibility in addressing emerging
threats. However, how can you guarantee that this flexibility will not result in
funds being spent inefficiently or on operations that yield minimal results?
Answer: Efficient fund usage is ensured by internal checks within
agencies and regular classified reporting to designated oversight bodies,
which assess the outcomes of operations based on confidential metrics.
o Question: Wouldn’t it be better to implement a dynamic approval system for
emerging threats instead of removing oversight completely?
Answer: A dynamic approval system is ideal but can still introduce
delays. Deregulation avoids these delays while maintaining oversight
through secure reviews. It is not about removing oversight but ensuring
agility in fund allocation.
4. On International Practices
o Question: You mentioned countries like the U.S. and Israel, but these nations
often have stringent internal and external oversight mechanisms. Can the
Philippines realistically implement such systems while ensuring similar
accountability?
Answer: Yes, the Philippines can implement similar systems tailored to
its needs. Independent bodies like the Commission on Audit (COA) can
adapt their methods to focus on classified reviews, ensuring accountability
without compromising operational secrecy.
o Question: Aren’t there risks in directly applying foreign practices to a different
political and social context without considering our unique challenges, such as
corruption?
Answer: While the Philippines faces challenges like corruption, these
risks can be mitigated through strict oversight by secure committees and
clear penalties for misuse. Best practices are adapted, not copied verbatim,
to suit our local context.
5. On Oversight Without Public Disclosure
o Question: If oversight is shifted to independent bodies, how can we ensure that
these bodies remain impartial and immune to influence?
Answer: Independent bodies will be composed of vetted, non-partisan
experts, and their operations will be regularly audited by higher
authorities, such as Congress, in classified settings. This layered approach
ensures impartiality.
o Question: Without public audits, how will citizens trust that confidential funds
are being used effectively for their safety?
Answer: Trust is built through visible outcomes, such as reduced crime
rates, successful operations, and improved security. Additionally, periodic
summaries—excluding sensitive details—can be shared to assure the
public of proper fund usage.
6. General Question
o Question: How do you address public concerns that deregulated funds might
increase opportunities for corruption or misuse, especially in a country with a
history of such issues?
Answer: Public concerns are valid, which is why deregulation is paired
with robust, confidential oversight mechanisms. Transparent outcomes,
such as improved security, will show that funds are used appropriately.
Stricter penalties for misuse will also deter corruption.
Affirmative Closing:
"Deregulation does not mean an absence of accountability. It is about balancing agility and
secrecy with secure oversight. By implementing safeguards like independent reviews and
classified audits, we can ensure that the nation's security is prioritized without compromising
trust."
