Beyond the Beat

Chapter 15

We stood on stage, four of us, hearts pounding, waiting for the next announcement.

“And now, this is it! We’re about to announce your partners!” Prof. Depfanny said excitedly, her voice filling the whole room like electricity.

“This is a duo debate battle,” she repeated, to make sure everyone got it.

We weren’t surprised anymore, we already knew. No turning back now.

“For the Affirmative side, we have Ms. Kiana Shanaya V. Cuevas and Mr. Eros Foster Regala!” she announced loudly.

“Oh!!!”

The crowd exploded into cheers, the noise hitting me like a wave.

“Go first year, and third year.”

They shouted, their excitement contagious.

“Go Kiros!”

Sigaw ulit nila. A weird, cheesy-sounding team name someone made up for Kiana and Eros.

The f**k? It’s a name for a loveteam? So jejemon level, I murmured in my mind, feeling a mix of annoyance and disbelief.

Prof. Depfanny motioned Kiana and Eros to the right side of the stage, standing close together like a real team.

Then Chion leaned in beside me, his voice dripping with mockery.

“It seems your boy toy isn't your partner, Spera.”

I narrowed my eyes and shot him a sharp glare.

“Shut up.”

But the assholes just smirked, his laughter low but clear.

My skin prickled from his smugness, but I forced myself to stay calm. This was bigger than his petty games.

I took a deep breath and braced myself this debate was about to get real.

We weren’t surprised anymore. We already knew. No turning back now.

“And for the Negative side, we have Ms. Luminia Spera Panganiban and Mr. Chion Kein Villarreal, Prof. Depfanny announced, motioning us to the left side of the stage.

“Ackkkkk!! Bagay talaga sila!”

The crowd from the fourth and second years shouted, their voices booming with excitement.

“Go, go, go!”

“Fight, fight, fight!”

SPECH!!!

They yelled loudly, cheering for us.

Spech? I thought, smirking. The ‘spe’ from my name Spera and ‘ch’ from Chion. Not bad, at least it’s not some jejemon nonsense like the other team’s.

“Are you ready?” Prof. Depfanny asked cheerfully, looking straight at us.

“Yes ma’am,” Eros and Kiana responded confidently from the other side. Chion and I just nodded, steady and silent.

Prof. Depfanny took a deep breath and announced, Let’s start. Our debate topic today is: ‘Should the law treat mala in se and mala prohibita crimes differently?’ First contestant, you may begin.”

Kiana was the first to speak, facing off against Chion while Eros and I stood ready on the sidelines, tension crackling in the air.

“Mala in se crimes are wrong in themselves, things like murder or theft,” Kiana began, her voice sharp and confident. “Everyone knows these acts are harmful and immoral even without laws. Because of their nature, these crimes deserve harsher punishments to protect society. On the other hand, mala prohibita crimes are wrong only because the law says so, like jaywalking or fishing without a permit. Since these crimes do not cause direct harm or moral wrongdoing, the law should treat them less harshly, focusing on education and correction rather than severe penalties.”

Her words cut through the room, aimed directly at Chion and me.

Prof. Depfanny turned to us, her tone challenging. “Now, let’s hear from the Negative side.”

Chion’s eyes were cold, his expression bored as if this was just another routine. But when he spoke, his words hit hard.

“Thank you,” he said smoothly, voice steady but biting. “While mala in se and mala prohibita differ in nature, the law exists to maintain order and protect the community. Some mala prohibita crimes, though not morally wrong in themselves, can still cause serious problems if ignored. Driving without a license,it isn’t immoral per se, but it endangers lives. You cannot afford to treat it lightly.”

He leaned forward, voice rising just enough to demand attention.

“Therefore, the law must treat both types seriously when public safety is at stake. Splitting hairs risks confusing enforcement and weakens respect for the law overall.”

His argument threw down a clear challenge, the kind that demanded a sharp reply.

Now it was my turn, and Eros’s. The air tightened as we stepped up, ready to counter and push back with everything we had.

I took a steady breath, feeling every pair of eyes fixed on me. My voice was calm but firm as I stepped forward, determined to make our side heard loud and clear.

“Chion makes a point about safety, and yes,the law must protect people,” I began, my gaze sharp and unwavering. “But there’s a huge difference between enforcing rules for safety and treating every crime as if they’re all equal. Mala in se crimes, murder, theft these break basic human rights and cause real harm. They deserve serious punishment.”

I let that sink in before continuing.

“But mala prohibita crimes? Those are mostly about controlling behavior, parking violations, and fishing without a permit. They don’t carry the same moral weight.”

The room hung on my words, the tension thick.

“If the law treats them the same way and punishes all crimes harshly, it only builds fear and unfairness, especially for minor offenses. Instead, we should focus on education and correction when it comes to mala prohibita. People need to learn without the threat of extreme penalties hanging over their heads.”

My voice grew stronger, fueled by conviction. “Justice isn’t just about punishment,it’s about fairness.”

I glanced at Eros across the stage and gave a slight nod. It was his turn now.

Eros stepped forward confidently, his voice clear and precise.

“We agree that the law protects society,” he said, pacing the crowd with his gaze. “But the key issue is proportionality. Mala in se crimes threaten life, property, and basic rights,obviously needing stronger responses. Meanwhile, mala prohibita crimes help maintain orderly coexistence.”

He paused for effect before adding, “Ignoring mala prohibita or treating them too lightly invites chaos. Take littering, for example. It’s not immoral by itself, but left unchecked, it harms public health and the environment.”

Eros’s stance tightened, strong but measured. “The law must be firm but fair,severe but sensible.”

The room buzzed with energy, the debate transforming into a real battle of ideas, and I felt every bit ready to dive back in.

I just stared at Eros blankly after he finished his speech, the tension thickening around me.

Then Kiana stepped forward again, her expression fierce as she prepared to dive back into the debate.

“Let me make this clear,” Kiana began, her voice steady and firm. “Mala in se crimes like pagpatay, panghoholdap, at pagnanakaw are universally wrong—these acts violate basic human rights and cause undeniable harm.”

“On the other hand, mala prohibita crimes such as pagjaywalk or pangingisda nang walang permit are wrong because the law defines them as such, not because they are inherently immoral.”

She looked directly at Chion.

“Just because some mala prohibita crimes might seem minor doesn’t mean they should be ignored. When laws like wearing helmets or proper waste disposal aren’t enforced, it threatens public safety and community wellbeing.”

“Therefore,” Kiana concluded, “the law’s treatment has to reflect the seriousness of each crime. While mala in se crimes deserve harsher punishments, mala prohibita offenses still require firm consequences to maintain order and protect society.”

She stepped back, eyes blazing, ready for whatever came next.

Chion stepped forward, his posture sharp and commanding, a hint of a smirk playing on his lips as he prepared to dismantle the other side’s arguments with the precision of a seasoned attorney.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” he began, voice steady and authoritative, “while my opponents paint a clean picture of mala in se crimes being inherently worse than mala prohibita, the reality is far more nuanced, and the law must reflect that complexity.”

“Mala prohibita crimes, though defined by statute rather than moral wrongness, often have consequences just as serious as those mala in se crimes.” He paced slightly, commanding the room’s attention.

“Take, for example, pagmamaneho nang walang lisensya, not inherently immoral, but a blatant disregard for public safety, putting countless lives at risk. Should such negligence be treated as a mere slap on the wrist?”

He paused, letting the question linger, then continued with growing conviction.

“Moreover, failure to enforce mala prohibita laws consistently breeds disrespect for the entire legal system. If minor violations like pagtatapon ng basura sa kalsada or illegal fishing go unchecked, it paves the way for widespread lawlessness.”

“Justice depends not only on the nature of the crime but on the protection of the social order, sometimes firm, sometimes flexible, but always unwavering in its goal to preserve peace and safety.”

Chion fixed his gaze on Kiana and me, his tone icy but measured.

“In short, the law’s strength lies in its capacity to adapt sanctions appropriately, ensuring that both mala in se and mala prohibita crimes receive attention proportional to their effects, not just their moral definitions.”

He stepped back, letting the weight of his argument settle over the room, clearly confident he had delivered a decisive blow.

Eros stepped forward next, his confidence radiating as he faced me. The room seemed to hold its breath, waiting for his response after Chion's powerful delivery.

“Thank you,” Eros began, his voice clear and purposeful. “While I respect my opponent’s points, the distinction between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is fundamental to how justice should be served.”

“Mala in se crimes, pagpatay, panghoholdap, pagnanakaw, are universally recognized as immoral, deserving of the harshest punishments to protect victims and society.”

“Meanwhile, mala prohibita offenses like pagjaywalk or pangingisda nang walang permit are primarily regulatory. They exist to maintain order but don’t carry the same inherent moral blame.”

He locked eyes with me.

“If the law treats these two categories the same, it dilutes justice and wastes resources on minor infractions, when it should focus on deterring serious wrongdoing.”

“Therefore,” Eros concluded firmly, “upholding this clear distinction allows the legal system to be both fair and effective—prioritizing protection and proportionality in punishment.”

He stepped back, ready to hear my side.

I stepped forward calmly, locking eyes with Eros as the room settled into expectant silence.

“Thank you, Eros, for outlining your perspective with such clarity,” I began, my voice steady and commanding.

“However, your rigid distinction between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes oversimplifies the complexity of justice and its application.”

“Mala in se crimes like pagpatay and pagnanakaw undoubtedly carry inherent moral wrongness, but that does not automatically relegate mala prohibita offenses to mere regulatory annoyances.”

I paced deliberately, engaging the audience.

“For instance, offenses such as walang suot na helmet habang nagmomotorsiklo or illegal fishing may be classified as mala prohibita, yet their consequences can be just as devastating, endangering lives, damaging ecosystems, and undermining societal order.”

“By insisting on a strict dichotomy, you risk minimizing the real harm caused by these offenses and the necessity for appropriately severe penalties.”

“Moreover,” I added, voice sharpening, “the effectiveness of law enforcement relies not only on clear categories but on proportional responses to actual impact. Justice demands flexibility a recognition that some mala prohibita crimes warrant significant sanctions because of their societal effects.”

I paused, letting my words resonate.

“So, to claim that equating punishment across these categories dilutes justice is precisely where your argument falters. Justice is diluted not by proportionality, but by ignoring the real-world consequences of mala prohibita offenses.”

Stepping back, I met Eros’s gaze steadily. The floor was his again, but the weight of my rebuttal lingered in the room.

******

And our Dean rise, her eyes scanning the room with a knowing smile. The tension finally eased as she prepared to wrap up the debate.

Her voice was clear and authoritative. “Thank you to both teams for a thoughtful and spirited discussion.”

Listening closely, I felt a mix of pride and nerves. She acknowledged the strong points made about the distinctions between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes, their inherent wrongness and regulatory nature.

“But,” she continued, “what truly matters is how the law applies these concepts in real life. Justice must be fair, proportional, and effective. It cannot be rigid or blind.”

The room was silent, hanging on her every word.

“Today’s debate reminded us that while some crimes are clearly worse, others, though less obvious, also demand attention and appropriate response, balancing punishment with rehabilitation.”

I glanced around, seeing nods and thoughtful faces.

“Ultimately,” Dean concluded, “our justice system’s strength lies in its ability to weigh circumstances, consequences, and intent, ensuring laws protect not only society but humanity itself.”

As she sat down, the students erupted in applause. I felt a quiet satisfaction, knowing that no matter the outcome, our voices had contributed to a meaningful conversation.