Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1
Monday, June 2, 1986
At 10:01 a. m., the processional began with the entry into the Session Hall of
the Members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986.
Then, preceded by the Acting Sergeants-Arms bearing the Mace, the VicePresident of the Philippines entered the Session Hall followed by the Acting
Secretary-General of the Commission.
The honor guards carrying the National and the Constitutional Commission
colors entered the Session Hall.
OPENING OF SESSION
At 10:05 a.m., the Vice-President, the Honorable Salvador H. Laurel, opened
the session.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: By virtue of the powers vested in me under
Proclamation No. 9, I hereby declare open this Inaugural Session of the
Constitutional
Commission of 1986.
For the purpose of this Inaugural Session, I would like to announce that at a
preliminary meeting of the Members of the Constitutional Commission a few
days ago, the following were elected:
The Honorable Napoleon G. Rama as Acting Floor Leader. (Applause)
The Honorable Jose D. Calderon as Acting Assistant Floor Leader. (Applause)
The Honorable Ahmad Domocao Alonto as Acting Assistant Floor Leader.
(Applause)
Professor Flerida Ruth Pineda Romero as Acting Secretary-General.
(Applause)
Attorney Roberto M. San Andres as Acting Sergeant-at-Arms. (Applause)
stability and economic recovery. Everything that will take place in this
Constitutional Commission will be important. Every word uttered during its
deliberations may later be cited to bring out the true intention and spirit of a
disputed word or phrase.
For this reason, the entire proceedings will not only be recorded, it will be
broadcast live by radio and television. And so the entire nation, if not the
entire world, will be watching, aware that the constitution being fashioned
will be the constitution of the future, the constitution of our children and
grandchildren. In the language of a great jurist, the constitution that you will
fashion will be henceforth binding on both rulers and people, equally in
war and in peace, and it will cover with the shield of its protection all classes
of men at all times and under all circumstances.
To the Members of the Constitutional Commission who are here now, and
whom I would like to refer to as patriots to the patriots now here
assembled let
us now bow our heads in prayer as we ask the Good Lord to enlighten your
minds so that you may pour out into the writing of our fundamental law the
noblest
thoughts of our valiant race.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing to sing the
Philippine National Anthem.
Everybody remained standing to sing the National Anthem.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Please remain standing for the invocation, which will
be ecumenical, to be led by the Rev. Cirilo Rigos of the Protestant Church, His
Eminence, Ricardo Cardinal Vidal of the Roman Catholic Church, Dean Adriel
O. Meimban of the Iglesia ni Cristo, Bishop Sotero Mitra and Dean Abdul
Raffih
Sayedy of the Islamic faith.
INVOCATION
CARDINAL VIDAL: The Lord be with you. Let us pray:
God, our Father
We, the sovereign Filipino people,
stand in Your presence to pray.
We pray especially and exclusively
for each and for all of the
fifty distinguished Members of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986.
These fifty Filipino men and women,
these fifty national, regional and sectoral representatives
of the more than fifty million Filipinos,
have solemnly sworn to faithfully and conscientiously
fulfill their duties,
and each one of them has prayed So help me God.
As we watch them begin to hasten the return of
normal constitutional government,
we pray to You, O God, to help them.
We firmly believe that without Your help,
they shall find it extremely difficult
to draft a fundamental law that is
truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations
Present
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present
Natividad
Present
Aquino
Present
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present
Ople
Present
Bengzon
Present
Padilla
Present
Bennagen
Present
Muoz Palma
Present
Bernas
Present
Quesada
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Rama
Present
Brocka
Present
Regalado
Present
Calderon
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Castro de
Present
Rigos
Present
Colayco
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Romulo
Present
Davide
Present
Rosales
Present
Foz
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Garcia
Present
Suarez
Present
Gascon
Present
Sumulong
Present
Guingona
Present
Tadeo
Present
Jamir
Present
Tan
Present
Laurel
Present
Tingson
Present
Lerum
Present
Treas
Present
Maambong
Present
Uka
Present
Villacorta
Present
Villegas
Present
Mr. Vice-President, the roll call shows 48 Members responded to the call. No
one is absent.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
OATH-TAKING OF CON-COM MEMBERS
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Will the Members now rise and take their oath of office.
(All the Members rose.)
Please raise your right hand and repeat after me.
PANUNUMPA SA KATUNGKULAN
Ako, si ______________________ ng __________________ na hinirang sa
katungkulan bilang ____________________ ay taimtim na nanunumpa na
tutuparin ko nang
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: In the meantime, the session is suspended.
It was 10:22 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:25 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
THE ACTING SECRETARY-GENERAL: Ladies and Gentlemen, Her Excellency,
the President of the Republic of the Philippines, Corazon C. Aquino.
(Applause)
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: The Constitutional Commission is now ready to hear the message
of Her Excellency, the President of the Philippines. (Applause)
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the Republic of
the Philippines, Her Excellency, Corazon C. Aquino. (Applause)
ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Vice-President Laurel, Chief Justice Teehankee, Members of the Diplomatic
Corps, Members of the Cabinet, Dean Adriel O. Meimban, Bishop Sotero
Mitra, Rev.
Cirilo Rigos, Dean Abdul Raffih Sayedy and His Eminence, Ricardo Cardinal
Vidal, Commissioners of the Constitution, distinguished guests, ladies and
gentlemen:
You are here today vested with the full authority and the complete
independence to write our countrys new constitution. Nobody, not even I,
your
President, can interfere with or overrule you in this great task. Our nation has
placed its trust in you. Do not let it down.
I join you today only to honor your beginning. What happens from here on is
a matter for you and you alone.
Today, apart from wishing you well and saying that the hopes and prayers of
our nation are with you, I want to make only two points. The first is, please
be quick. Nobody can impose a deadline on your deliberations but you know
that our whole nation is eager for a new constitution and the subsequent
elections as soon as possible. The people expect a constitutional draft within
three months for their sovereign acceptance or rejection. So eager are they
to have, in the shortest time possible, a full-blown democratic republic.
Second, please limit yourselves to your constitutional mission. Your task is to
design a constitution that will provide for a new legislature, not to do
that legislatures work for it. That is for the peoples elected representatives
to do.
You must define and protect our individual freedoms and rights; you must
decide how our different institutions of state will relate to each other. Do not
be distracted by political debates and matters of policy that do not belong
within your constitution-making exercise. You are here, appointed by the
peoples wish, to write a constitution; you are here not as elected politicians.
Bear in mind that you shall be pondering, debating and writing a constitution
not only for our contemporaries with their present concerns but also for
succeeding generations of Filipinos whose first concerns we cannot presume
to know beforehand. Future Filipinos must always be free to decide how to
address these concerns as they arise. Even the wisest cures for present
maladies should not be imposed on succeeding generations that will have
their own
unique problems and priorities.
True and long-lived constitutions, a wise justice has told me, should be broad
enough to be able to meet every exigency we cannot foretell, and specific
enough to stoutly protect the essentials of a true democracy; in short, openended documents that will always be relevant. Remember that constitutional
changes are not safe or easy to come by. Our first attempt at constitutional
revision was followed by a dictatorship. And this, our second endeavor, was
preceded by a revolution.
Future Filipinos and their legislatures and supreme courts can best assess
and address the challenges they will meet, if they enjoy the widest latitude
of
thought and action. In writing a constitution, have the fullest confidence that
the wisdom of our race has not exhausted itself in us. Our race has grown
in wisdom over time. I believe it will continue to do so.
Yours is indeed no easy task. On the other hand, depending on the result,
yours will be no small glory. Our people have suffered much. I hope we shall
always concern ourselves with the needs of our people.
Thank you and Godspeed. (Applause)
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that the session be suspended.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Chair declares a suspension of the session.
It was 10:33 am.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:42 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Will the Members of the Constitutional Commission please return to their
respective seats because we will now go into the main purpose of this
Inaugural
Session, and that is, to comply with Section IX, Paragraph 3 of Proclamation
No. 9 which requires the election of the President and Presiding Officer of
the Constitutional Commission. It is mandated to be the first order of
business.
Will the non-Members of the Constitutional Commission please clear the hall
so that the Constitutional Commission can now proceed with its first order of
business.
The table is now open for nomination for President who will also be the
Presiding Officer of this Constitutional Commission.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we suspend the session for 30
minutes so that we can go into a caucus.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: May I know the purpose of the caucus?
MR. RAMA: The purpose of the caucus is to narrow down any issues or
conflicts regarding the election of the President and expedite the election of
the
President of the Constitutional Commission.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
The Gentleman from Mindanao is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: I would like to inquire from the Acting Floor Leader if the
caucus is for the whole membership or for a limited group. Who will attend
the
caucus?
MR. RAMA: The caucus will be composed of all the Members of the
Constitutional Commission for purposes of defining certain rules and
regulations.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Will the Acting Floor Leader indicate the room in which
we will hold the caucus?
MR. RAMA: I think the Secretariat will indicate what room exactly.
THE ACTING SECRETARY-GENERAL: The lounge is ready to receive the
Members. It is over there. Snacks will be served.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Where will the caucus be, in the same hall where we are
now?
THE ACTING SECRETARY-GENERAL: No, in the lounge, please; it is over there.
You will pass this way (pointing).
MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Vice-President, it is about a quarter to eleven now.
Usually a caucus lasts about two, three, or four hours I do not know how
long. How
would the Chair limit the caucus this afternoon?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: May I know how many minutes suspension the Acting
Floor Leader is asking for?
MR. RAMA: It might be necessary to suspend the session for an hour.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection for a one-hour suspension?
MR. ABUBAKAR: No objection, Mr. Vice-President.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
President.
I repeat, will the members of the family of the Honorable President of the
Constitutional Commission please come up to the rostrum to personally
witness
the oath-taking and the turnover.
OATH-TAKING OF THE PRESIDENT
At this juncture, Commissioner Cecilia Muoz Palma, escorted by the
Committee of Three and members of her family, ascended the rostrum and
took her oath of
office as President of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 before the VicePresident of the Philippines, the Honorable Salvador H. Laurel.
PANUNUMPA SA KATUNGKULAN
Ako, si Cecilia Muoz Palma ng Bauan, Batangas, na hinirang sa katungkulan
bilang Presidente, Constitutional Commission, ay taimtim na nanunumpa na
tutuparin ko nang buong husay at katapatan, sa abot ng aking kakayahan,
ang mga tungkulin ng aking kasalukuyang katungkulan at ng mga iba pang
pagkaraan
nitoy gagampanan ko sa ilalim ng Republika ng Pilipinas; na aking
itataguyod at ipagtatanggol ang umiiral na Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas; na
tunay na
mananalig at tatalima ako rito; na susundin ko ang mga batas, mga
kautusang legal, at mga dekretong pinaiiral ng mga sadyang itinakdang
maykapangyarihan ng
Republica ng Pilipinas; at kusa kong babalikatin ang pananagutang ito, nang
walang ano mang pasubali o hangaring umiwas.
Kasihan Nawa Ako ng Diyos.
under a basic fundamental law which will govern the life and destiny of the
Filipino people not only for today and tomorrow but hopefully for all ages to
come.
While conscious of my inadequacy and unworthiness as there are more able
and worthy Members who can head this Commission, I nonetheless accept
and receive
the mantle of responsibility, emboldened by the thought that I have the
inspiration and guidance of the men and women composing this Commission
who, after
all, will be the architects to build the new Philippine government for the new
Philippine State.
True it is that the Members of the-Constitutional Commission come from
different walks of life and ages and are of diverse creeds and social,
economic and
political persuasions, but it is this diversity that ensures the formulation of a
document where traditional principles of democracy, handed down by the
Malolos Constitution, the Philippine Constitution of 1935 and the Constitution
of 1973, will be enriched by new concepts, born from the social complexities
and changes of the times and strengthened by a recapture of our values for
truth, justice and morality, and glorified by our love for country and faith in
the Divine.
The Constitutional Commission assumes its tasks in the midst of clouds of
doubt and mistrust generated principally from its appointive character and
the
Yes, my friends, let us do our duty with dedication, giving our utmost to
attain the highest ideals for our people and let the Almighty do the rest.
Let me close with this revelation: that our people throughout the country in
their respective churches and homes are storming the heavens with their
prayers for the success of the Constitutional Commission, that it may draft a
basic law that serves the good of all the Filipino people, preserves its
territorial integrity, respects human dignity and protects basic human rights
and freedoms, gives justice to all that no one may be exploited or trampled
upon, and builds a nation founded on truth and love for the Creator of life
and for ones fellowmen.
In the Holy Bible it is written, and I quote:
A house built on rock will remain firm and indestructible when the rains fall,
the winds blow and the floods come; but when a house is built on sand and
the rains fall, the winds blow, and the floods come that house will be swept
away and be ruined.
On this day, when we have taken but oath to serve in this Constitutional
Commission, let us pledge to ourselves and to the Filipino people that in the
spirit of unity, wisdom and self-sacrifice we shall create a Constitution
founded on the solid rock of equality, justice, liberty and peace, reminding
our
people, however, that it is the people themselves who have the final
responsibility to give life to the words written in their Constitution. The
people
have to live by the Constitution, defend it with their lives, if necessary, in
order that their Constitution will be an impregnable bulwark of their
liberties.
Again, my colleagues, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for the
mandate you have given this humble Member, coworker and friend.
(Applause)
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: I move that we suspend the session until two oclock this
afternoon after our lunch and caucus.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
session is suspended.
It was 12:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:48 p.m., the session was resumed with the President, Honorable Cecilia
Muoz Palma, presiding.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
ELECTION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I call on Commissioner de los Reyes to
make a nomination.
NOMINATION SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER DE LOS REYES
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rustico de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, the man I am going to nominate is a
bar topnotcher, super athlete, author of several law books, three-time
Senator,
seasoned parliamentarian and statesman. I think he is overqualified for the
position of Vice-President.
The Honorable Teodoro Bacani, Jose Colayco and Ma. Teresa Nieva will please
escort the Vice-President.
OATH-TAKING OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT
At this juncture, Commissioner Ambrosio B. Padilla, escorted by the
Committee of Three, ascended the rostrum and took his oath of office as
Vice-President
of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 before the President, ,he Honorable
Cecilia Muoz Palma.
PANUNUMPA SA KATUNGKULAN
Ako, si Ambrosio Padilla ng Maynila at Pangasinan, na hinirang sa
katungkulan bilang Bise-Presidente ng Constitutional Commission, ay taimtim
na nanunumpa
na tutuparin ko nang buong husay at katapatan, sa abot ng aking
kakayahan, ang mga tungkulin ng aking kasalukuyang katungkulan at ng
mga iba pang pagkaraan
nitoy gagampanan ko sa ilalim ng Republika ng Pilipinas; na aking
itataguyod at ipagtatanggol ang umiiral na Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas; na
tunay na
mananalig at tatalima ako rito; na susundin ko ang mga batas, mga
kautusang legal, at mga dekretong pinaiiral ng mga sadyang itinakdang
maykapangyarihan ng
Republika ng Pilipinas; at kusa kong babalikatin ang pananagutang ito, nang
walang ano mang pasubali o hangaring umiwas.
Kasihan Nawa Ako ng Diyos. (Applause)
MR. PADILLA: May I say a few words?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course. The Vice-President will address the body.
MR. DAVIDE: I understand that the next item in the agenda is the election of
the Floor Leader and the Assistant Floor Leader. I move for a deferment of
the
election of both the Floor Leader and the Assistant Floor Leader until such
time as the Commission shall have decided on the issue of the Steering
Committee. In the meantime, I move that the Acting Floor Leader and Acting
Assistant Floor Leader be allowed to continue to serve as such until the
election of the permanent Floor Leader and Assistant Floor Leader pursuant
to any disposition on the issue of the Steering Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. BENGZON: I second the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is seconded.
Is there any objection to the motion as seconded? (Silence) The Chair hears
none, the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that the table be opened for nomination for the SecretaryGeneral and the Sergeant-at-Arms.
THE PRESIDENT: The table is open for nomination for the Office of the
Secretary-General.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Minda Luz Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I have the honor to nominate Madam
Flerida Ruth Romero as Secretary-General of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the motion to close the nomination
for Sergeant-at-Arms? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
(Applause)
Mr. San Andres is elected Sergeant-at-Arms of this body.
MR. RAMA: As to the next item, Madam President, I ask that Commissioner
Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I would like to move that the formal
organization of the committees be deferred until we shall have determined
such
committees, the scope of their- responsibilities and the number of the
members that shall compose them.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion that No. 3 in the
agenda, Organization of the Committees, be deferred? (Silence) The Chair
hears none;
the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is a special item here which is not written
in the agenda.
May I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, I move that the Commission pass a resolution
of thanks to the Honorable Salvador H. Laurel, Vice-President of the
Philippines,
for his services during the caucus and todays session of this Commission.
ALL MEMBERS: I second the motion.
R.C.C. NO. 2
Tuesday, June 3, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 3:17 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
Everybody will please rise for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Gregorio
J. Tingson.
Everybody rose for the Prayer.
MR. TINGSON: Let us pray.
PRAYER
Our Omnipotent and loving Heavenly Father, we are faced with the awesome
task of writing the fundamental law of our country, so destitute, so deprived
and
so discouraged. We confess that we, who have been mandated to accomplish
this work, are so weak and devoid of knowledge and understanding.
Help us, we beseech Thee, to understand the real needs of our people; that
perhaps we do not need more material opulence but spiritual fulfillment;
more
compassion for the weak and the poor among us; and to realize that
righteousness exalts the nation but sin is a reproach to any people.
Thank you, dear Lord, for giving us this enviable honor and privilege to be
participants, not mere passive spectators in building, through this
Constitution, a Philippines honored by man, blessed by God and a great hope
for generations to come.
This is our heartfelt praise and petition through the matchless name of Jesus
Christ, Our Lord, Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present *
Natividad
Present
Aquino
Present
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present
Ople
Present
Bengzon
Present
Padilla
Present
Bennagen
Present
Muoz Palma
Present
Bernas
Present
Quesada
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Rama
Present
Brocka
Present
Regalado
Present
Calderon
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Castro de
Present
Rigos
Present
Colayco
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Romulo
Present
Davide
Present
Rosales
Present
Foz
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Garcia
Present
Suarez
Present
Gascon
Present
Sumulong
Present
Guingona
Present
Tadeo
Present
Jamir
Present
Tan
Present
Laurel
Present
Tingson
Present
Lerum
Present
Treas
Present
Maambong
Present
Uka
Present
Villacorta
Present
Villegas
Present
Constitutional Commission.
OATH-TAKING OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
PANUNUMPA SA KATUNGKULAN
Ako, si Flerida Ruth P. Romero ng Maynila, na hinirang sa katungkulan bilang
Secretary-General ng 1986 Constitutional Commission ay taimtim na
nanunumpa na
tutuparin ko nang buong husay at katapatan, sa abot ng aking kakayahan,
ang mga tungkulin ng aking kasalukuyang katungkulan at ng mga iba pang
pagkaraan
nitoy gagampanan ko sa ilalim ng Republika ng Pilipinas; na aking
itataguyod at ipagtatanggol ang umiiral na Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas; na
tunay na
mananalig at tatalima ako rito; na susundin ko ang mga batas, mga
kautusang legal, at mga dekretong pinaiiral ng mga sadyang itinakdang
maykapangyarihan ng
Republika ng Pilipinas; at kusa kong babalikatin ang pananagutang ito, nang
walang ano mang pasubali o hangaring umiwas.
KASIHAN NAWA AKO NG DIYOS. (Applause)
OATH-TAKING OF THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS
PANUNUMPA SA KATUNGKULAN
Ako, si Roberto M. San Andres ng Quezon City, na hinirang sa katungkulan
bilang Sergeant-at-Arms ng 1986 Constitutional Commission ay taimtim na
nanunumpa
na tutuparin ko nang buong husay at katapatan, sa abot ng aking
kakayahan, ang mga tungkulin ng aking kasalukuyang katungkulan at ng
mga iba pang pagkaraan
leaders who were invited for the purpose, NAMELY: REVEREND CIRILO RIGOS,
RICARDO CARDINAL VIDAL, BISHOP ADRIEL O. MEIMBAN, BISHOP SOTERO
MITRA, AND
PROFESSOR ABDUL RAFFIH SAYEDY.
On page 4, under the heading Entry of the President, the second paragraph
should read: The Body AND THE AUDIENCE gave the President a standing
ovation.
Under the heading Address of the President, the first line should read: The
President underscored the full authority GRANTED TO and THE complete
independence vested in the Constitutional Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner de los Reyes satisfied?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, will the Secretary-General please repeat
the last amendment?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: The last amendment reads: The President
underscored the full authority GRANTED TO and THE complete independence
vested in the
Constitutional Commission.
MR. BENGZON: I am not an authority on grammar, but I think it does not
sound right.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, this is just a brief summary of the speech of Her
Excellency, President Aquino.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: My observation regarding the insertion of the words
GRANTED TO is based not only on grammar but on substance. Madam
President, it might
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, also on page 2, Section 4, line 21, put an S
after the word Leader to make it plural; insert THREE (3) between the
words
his and Assistants; thus: with his THREE (3) Assistant Floor Leaders.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Also, I propose an omnibus amendment to the effect that
should there be any other statements in this Appendix No. 1 that refer to this
concept, they should be amended accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed omnibus
amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. RAMA: I move for the approval of the Journal of yesterdays session, as
amended.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the approval of the Journal of
yesterdays session, as amended? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
Journal, as
amended, is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. SUAREZ: Will the Acting Floor Leader take up the suggestion that he
should file a formal motion to suspend the Rules in connection with the
freewheeling discussion on the form of government so that we will be free to
discuss this without applying rigidly either the permanent Rules or the
Provisional Rules of the Commission?
MR. RAMA: I am amenable to the suggestion.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: So, may I request that the President have a ruling on my motion
for a freewheeling discussion of the nature of government.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. NOLLEDO: Point of inquiry, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Objection, Madam President. I thought that the pending motion
is to suspend the Rules. We cannot go into a freewheeling discussion until a
motion to suspend the Rules shall have been approved by the body.
MR. RAMA: That is why I am asking the President to ask the body regarding
that motion to suspend the Rules.
MR. NOLLEDO: Point of inquiry, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Honorable Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: I understand I was called upon by the Floor Leader to state
my urgent motion to constitute the Commission as an ad hoc committee to
immediately conduct public hearings. It seems that I cannot begin my motion
because there are many justifiable or unjustifiable interruptions. What is my
status now?
THE PRESIDENT: As the Chair understands it, first, there is a motion to
suspend the Rules and consider the Honorable Nolledos urgent motion which
has been
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, for the information of the honorable VicePresident, the Acting Floor Leader and I have agreed that his motion will be
consolidated with mine. That is why I added the expression at the end of my
motion without prejudice to a free wheeling discussion of the form of
government among the Members. We have agreed. In other words, in effect,
we withdrew his motion.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, the motion that was before the body is the
Gentlemans particular motion for the whole Constitutional Commission to
consider
itself as a committee of the whole to discuss or to conduct public hearings on
the structure of government that will be adopted.
MR. NOLLEDO: And that later on to discuss this in plenary session, but
without prejudice to a freewheeling discussion, if the body so minds.
THE PRESIDENT: Later on.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: But then Commissioner Sarmiento proposed to amend that,
so that instead of the entire Commission being converted into a committee
of the
whole, there be only a smaller committee to which it should be referred. Is
that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: That was the situation when the session was suspended.
What does the Acting Floor Leader say?
MR. RAMA: That is the correct situation, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Are there any remarks on the proposed
amendment?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, the main motion of the Acting Floor Leader
was for a freewheeling discussion. As amended, it will be without prejudice to
a
freewheeling discussion. I think the idea is that the Members of this
Commission be given an opportunity to explain their views on whether they
are for the
presidential or parliamentary or some other mixed system, but I do not see
any reason for another motion to constitute this Commission or even a
portion of
this Commission as an ad hoc committee and undertake public hearings for a
period of six days. This will unduly delay the very important task of this
Commission in expediting the formulation of a new Constitution.
As a matter of fact, I will make a side remark, Madam President There is, for
example, a resolution to include the Preamble or the territory or the Bill of
Rights all of these are fundamental portions of a Constitution that had
been there since 1935. We will not advance. We will just say a resolution to
include . . . Perhaps there is a definite text of a preamble that a Member
wishes to be considered in reference to, say, the Preamble in the 1935
Constitution or even the 1973 Constitution. We should have a point of
reference on which we can propose some amendments and maybe insert
one word or
substitute another, and that will expedite our work. But I see so many
resolutions, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. We will let Commissioner Padilla finish his
statement first.
MR. PADILLA: But the resolutions do not specify the exact text. So I would
suggest, of course, subject to the correction . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: In connection with that, Madam President, I wrote a letter to
my colleagues specifying the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions, most
provisions of
which now appear in the Freedom Constitution, as the bases of discussion in
the plenary session should we decide to adopt the presidential system as the
form of government.
And in connection with that, Madam President, because I consider that as
argument against my motion, I would like to rebut the arguments. It is not
good to
ignore the people. We must feel the pulse of the people. We must hear them
first because if we go to the drafts of the 1935 Constitution and the 1973
Constitution or the Freedom Constitution immediately without hearing the
people, then an impression may be created that we are railroading
everything.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo, may the Chair please be clarified on
this?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: There are two matters that are before us. First, shall this
Commission consider itself as the committee of the whole or shall it form a
smaller committee to act on the structure or to discuss the structure of
government? And, second, can this Commission this afternoon enter into a
preliminary discussion of the merits of any kind of structure of government.
Is that what is included?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is right, Madam President.
Assuming that I agree or the body agrees with the amendment of the
Honorable Renato Sarmiento, we are not prevented from having a
freewheeling discussion
as contemplated by the honorable Vice-President of this Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: And as the Chair understands it, there are Members who are
ready to discuss this particular point this afternoon.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I am ready to listen to them.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us then proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO: There is an amendment by the Honorable Renato Sarmiento
I do not know if there is anyone who would like to amend that
amendment. As I said,
it alters my urgent motion substantially. And so, I submit to the body.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: May we address some points of information to the second
proponent, Commissioner Sarmiento?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you. I understand that instead of this Commission being
constituted as an ad hoc committee to conduct public hearings, the
Gentleman
would limit the same to a committee of the entire body constituting itself
into an ad hoc committee. Did I understand my friend correctly?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is correct.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman did not specify the number of the members of
that proposed committee. Will he be kind enough to state, if he has an idea,
how
also nationwide. So, I would suggest that this committee be tasked with
determining the mode of procedure and manner by which these public
hearings will be
conducted. I wonder if Commissioner Sarmiento would agree to such a
proposal, and if he does, then we can word the amendments accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: I would agree to the amendment being proposed by
Commissioner Bengzon.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: In view of the amendment to the amendment, I have no
objection to the amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento. I withdraw my
objection.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, will the sponsor to the amendment agree to
the following amendments: instead of 30 members, let us have 15
members? In our
Rules, that committee has the biggest number of members. That said
Committee on Style has only 15 members. If we have 30 members, it might
be too unwieldy;
we might as well have a committee of the whole. I wonder if the sponsor of
the amendment will accept the amendment.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: The amendment precisely leaves to the discretion of the
President the number of membership of the committee. So, I was going to
suggest to
Floor Leader for a freewheeling discussion among the Members here present.
And we can suspend the Rules only as far as the freewheeling discussion
proposed
by the Acting Floor Leader is concerned. We cannot suspend the entire Rules
especially with regard to the formation of the committees and the powers
and
prerogatives of these different committees.
Madam President, if there is this ad hoc committee, whether composed of
the entire 50 or 30 or 15 or even 5 members, and we conduct public
hearings for one
week, and then report to the plenary session for another six days, I believe
we will be defeating the purpose of the Acting Floor Leader in suggesting just
a freewheeling discussion among the Members.
MR. BENGZON: May I clarify, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: The motion of the Acting Floor Leader for a freewheeling
discussion has been approved. So we are going to go into a freewheeling
discussion,
and in this freewheeling discussion comes the motion of Commissioner
Nolledo. This is part of the freewheeling discussion. So if we had just
disposed of
his motion, as amended, and created this committee, and that would have
been finished, then the next would have been for anyone of us to be able to
stand
up and really articulate his ideas on the type of government. The motion of
Commissioner Nolledo is part of the freewheeling discussion of this body. So,
between the executive power and the legislative power, we generally classify
governments into the presidential system, the parliamentary system or some
kind of a combination of the two. And, as we are very familiar with the
matter, we can say that the primary characteristic of the presidential form of
government is separation of powers between the executive, legislative and
judicial branches of the government characterized by the independence of
the
three but with the President holding some paramount position of precedence.
And for that reason, it is referred to as a presidential form of government.
Moreover, in this system we have fixed terms both for the executive and for
the members of the legislature.
In the parliamentary system, the primary characteristic, it would seem to
me, is that executive power is exercised by a Cabinet headed by a Prime
Minister
which for all practical purposes is a committee of the legislative body, and
the executive and the members of the Cabinet hold office at the pleasure of
the legislative body. In other words, it is without a fixed term. And the
mechanism for terminating the tenure of the members of the Cabinet and of
the
Prime Minister is by a no-confidence vote whenever there is a fundamental
difference or disagreement between the legislature and the executive
department.
And the democratic character of this system is manifested by the fact that
when there is a vote of no confidence, the point of disagreement is thrown to
the people. The executive also has a weapon against Parliament in that he
can dissolve Parliament. And when there is a disagreement between the two,
this
is thrown to the people. When national elections are held, the people align
themselves either in favor of the legislature or the executive. If a majority
of those who were in Parliament are reelected, then that would be an
indication that the executive has lost the struggle with Parliament.
So, if I may speak in terms of advantages or disadvantages, one of the
advantages of the presidential system is that we have stability of
government. At
the same time, however, it suffers the disadvantage that we have to wait for
a long time before we can replace people we might not be satisfied with.
Whereas, in a parliamentary system, it is possible for the sentiments of the
people to be immediately felt and reflected in the selection of a new
executive and a new Parliament.
So, very roughly, I would say that those could be the parameters of our
discussion on whether we select a presidential system or a parliamentary
system.
Our experience in the Philippines has been primarily with the presidential
system. We have never really experienced a parliamentary system. But in
the
period of the 1973 Constitution, we experienced what was referred to as a
modified parliamentary system. It was a presidential system with the
President
having the power to dissolve the National Assembly and with the National
Assembly possessing the power to exercise a vote of no confidence but not
against
the Chief Executive but against a minor functionary; namely, the Prime
Minister. So, the government which terminated with the February revolution
was a
government which predominantly was presidential with some characteristics
of the parliamentary system.
As we very well know, the idea of dividing power among the executive,
legislative and judicial departments is primarily for the purpose of limiting
power.
Constitutions are made not for the purpose of granting power to government
because governments have power inherent in them, but rather for the
purpose of
limiting power. And the principal device for limiting power is by dividing them
into these three departments, the idea being that power can be exercised
only with the cooperation of the two departments. And the aberration takes
place when one department is able to complete an official act without the
cooperation of the others. For instance, in the legislative process, power is
jointly exercised by the legislature and by the executive. Aberration takes
place when the executive alone can complete a legislation without the help
or without the check of any other authority. We also know that this system
was
transplanted to the Philippines from the United States, this system of limiting
power through a horizontal system of distribution of power; namely, the
executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. In the American system, aside
from this horizontal system of dividing power, there is also the vertical
system of dividing power; namely, the powers of the national government
and the powers of the local government or the state government. There are
certain
state powers which are beyond the reach of national government, and there
are certain governmental powers which cannot be exercised by the national
government because they are reserved for the state government. In that
sense, what is effected is a limitation of power, which is intended to prevent
the
possibility of concentrating power, resulting in a dictatorship. When the
system was transplanted to our land by the Americans, what they
transplanted was
the system of the horizontal distribution of power, not the system of vertical
distribution of power. Looking at the history of the United States
Constitution and I think this is a very important point to consider the
federal system of the United States which created a national government
was a
system designed by the elite of American society precisely for the purpose of
neutralizing the power of the masses. When the state governments were
confronted by restless farmers and restless debtors and this became a
problem for them they met among themselves and agreed on a strong
federal
government, a national government, a bigger government which would be
less accessible to the masses and to that extent, less subject to the influence
of
the masses. So, there is this thesis in the American system that the federal
government of the United States is anti-democratic. When the system was
transplanted to us, it became worse because not only was a central
government created, but the central government was also given complete
discretion in
what powers the local government should have. In the American system, at
least the states retained certain untouchable powers. Here the powers were
completely in the hands of the national government. And the question is
sometimes asked whether our system, borrowed from the United States, will
guarantee
that liberty will not be lost, dictatorship will not take place. It is a system
which has worked in the United States. It seems to me that it is a system
which has not worked in the Philippines and we ask our- selves why. Perhaps,
the answer is economic. The great masses of poor and disadvantaged people
in
the Philippines create a situation of dependence upon patrons. When you
have a situation of severe, almost absolute dependence on patrons, if there
is this
great economic inequality, no matter how strong are the guarantees of
liberty you might have, liberty will always be endangered And it seems to me
that is
what happened in our country.
Very briefly, therefore, our discussions perhaps could be along these lines,
not so much on whether we should have a bicameral or unicameral
government
powers retained by the local governments which may not be touched by the
national government.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, basically, not a principal feature of the federal
government as is known and operated in the United States.
FR. BERNAS: That is correct.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: Will the distinguished Gentleman yield to some clarificatory
questions?
FR. BERNAS: Willingly.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: Did I get the Gentleman correctly as having said that the
parliamentary system is more responsive but rather complicated?
FR. BERNAS: I did say that that there are characteristics of the
parliamentary system which make it more immediately responsive to these
changing
conditions.
MR. DAVIDE: In that respect, therefore, the parliamentary system would be
most suited to the needs of the time especially in our country?
FR. BERNAS: This has to be balanced also with the need for stability.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the need for stability not be recognized by the system of
recall within a given period? For instance, if we fix the term of the members
of the legislature to six years and the term of the Prime Minister also to six
years as well as that of the President and allow a recall somewhere at the
middle of the term, would it not assure a certain degree of stability?
FR. BERNAS: That is correct, at least under the system of the 1935
Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. Under that, sovereignty is vested by the people in the
national government. How then do we grant sovereign or autonomous
powers to the
local government? Who will decide on this? I suppose it is we in framing our
Constitution, and the people, in ratifying it.
FR. BERNAS: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: But this Constitution which we are framing must be couched
in general terms; we cannot go into specifics. Is that right?
FR. BERNAS: That would be right.
MR. RODRIGO: Does the Gentleman have any idea on how we should word
this general provision?
FR. BERNAS: In as far as framing this general provision is concerned, it will
involve, I think, a careful cataloguing of the powers of government. After we
have catalogued the powers of government, we will make a decision as to
which of these powers should be retained by the national government and
which of
these powers should be given to the local governments.
Let me give an example. For instance, regarding national defense, who has
the last say on national defense? We will make a decision on that. In the
disposition of national resources, we will have to make a division of the
various types of natural resources mineral land, forest land, agricultural
land. And with respect to each of these questions, we will determine who has
the final decision on the disposition of such matters. So, it will involve the
FR. BERNAS: Yes. As a matter of fact, the United States has a presidential
system but it is a federal system.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, thank you very much.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, may I be recognized?
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, may I be recognized? My observation is
pertinent to the matter now discussed by the Commission because this is a
reality.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is asking to be recognized. He may
proceed.
MR. ABUBAKAR: This is a reality prevailing in the South.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Because of the insistence of Muslim leaders in Southern
Philippines that they be given more power, more say in the determination of
policies
in the region, the national government created a legislative assembly for
Region IX composed of the Provinces of Sulu, Zamboanga and Basilan, whose
Speaker
is appointed by the President and whose seat is in Zamboanga City. This
assembly legislates for its region on matters concerning powers which the
government has delegated to it. Representatives from each province,
including the Speaker of the regional assembly, if I still remember, are
appointed from
Manila. So, we have here a regional setup which has proven to be successful
because the people feel that they still have a regional assembly to whom
they
can appeal and who knows and feels the interest of the region. The Speaker
is elected by them and each region Sulu, Cotabato, Lanao and the other
regions
is represented. It is still working and there is no reason why it could not
succeed.
It has succeeded and the people realize that the national government has
not only appropriated power or neglected them, but has given their
representatives
the power to legislate or to declare policies for the benefit of the people and
the region itself. It is working and it is successful.
I suppose many of the Members of the Commission do not realize this
because this applies only to the southern region, Region IX. I personally know
the
representatives of these provinces to the regional legislative assembly in
Zamboanga, and they hold regular sessions. This regional body is not exactly
autonomous in the sense that the government has delegated all powers of
sovereignty or even part of its sovereignty to this regional body, but the
regional
body became more conscious of its responsibility.
On the basis of this arrangement which prevails only in Region IX, other
regions of the Philippines are encouraged to institute a regional legislative
assembly so that the question of welfare policies will be debated by the
representatives of the region itself. This does not need any constitutional
proviso; the authority of the government to pass the law creating this
regional autonomous government has not been contested because the
people accept this
excellent for we opened the doors of this Commission to the people through
public hearings. The fact that some of us have been going to the different
provinces trying to find out what people think would later on make this
nation aware that we have empowered the people to determine the solutions
to their
real problems.
I would like to end with this point: The problems of hunger, poverty and land
are essentially a problem of power or a problem of participation of the
majority. We may have very good ideas regarding land reform but, if the
farmer is not consulted or if he does not, in a sense, become the creator of
his
own history, then we will not be judged very well by history. That is why I
would like to make this appeal to my brothers here we are not simply
going to
be the only authors of this Constitution, but also our people. Let us write this
Constitution together with them.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May I address a question to Commissioner Bernas, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas may yield, if he so desires.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: The system of recall that Commissioner Bernas has
articulated could also go the other way around by producing instability, could
it not? In
other words, if the recall would be too easy, then that would defeat the very
purpose for the installation of such a system.
FR. BERNAS: It would depend on the terms of the recall.
MR. BENGZON: Therefore, instead of a recall as called for in a parliamentary
system, how about liberalizing the mode of impeachment? Does
Commissioner
Bernas think that would be better?
FR. BERNAS: I have no fixed ideas on this.
MR. BENGZON: As long as one can insure stability and at the same time put
the President or the head of government on his toes, realizing that he could
be
impeached, would that not be satisfactory?
FR. BERNAS: A liberalized impeachment after a pattern of the noconfidence vote on parliamentary system, yes. A recall, as I understand it, is
something
that is exercised not by the parliament but rather by the electorate. So in
that sense, perhaps it could be superior to impeachment in terms of
popularity
but more expensive.
MR. BENGZON: With respect to the regionalization of certain powers or giving
the regions certain autonomy, I am not only speaking of the political will or
the political aspect of the peoples life. I would also like to extend this
discussion not only to the economic aspect but also to the community life in
various respective areas. Some people say that we cannot give too much
right and power to our people because they are not yet ready for it, or they
have
not yet been properly politicized, or they do not know yet how to exercise
their rights. My thinking is, if we do not begin now, when are we going to
begin? So, would Commissioner Bernas agree with the thought that all
communities should determine the solutions to their respective problems
because they
are in the best position to know them? And, therefore, would the Gentleman
agree that the Constitution we are going to draft should be general but in
such
a way as would give people in the barrios freedom to determine and decide
for themselves the solutions to their particular problems?
FR. BERNAS: Certainly As Commissioner Garcia was saying, a very important
thing is the reality of peoples participation. If the basic Christian
communities in the Catholic Church succeeded in many things, it is largely
because their own sufficiency was recognized by the church. So, I agree with
Commissioner Bengzon that we should recognize the responsibility of basic
communities, and that we should not exercise over-paternalism which kills
initiative and growth.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, that is the word paternity. I do not want to use the
word Christian because other Filipinos are not Christian.
FR. BERNAS: As a matter of fact, there is a current example now of how
government can go to the grass roots. We can translate the structure of
basic
Christian communities into secular organizations and have them achieve
secular ends.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, but if we could provide the basic right and opportunity to
these respective communities to really be aware of their problems and to
of lost time.
The main criticism against the presidential system is that we were involved
in a tug-of-war struggle for power between the president and the Congress. I
remember that. So, there was a hue and cry for a system whereby there will
be less check and balance. In a parliamentary system we will be given
enough
rope to hang ourselves without the traditional check and balance. I agree in
part with Commissioner Villacorta. We are arguing the facts of life here. I am
here not to apologize for anybody. In fact, I would admit many things in order
to arrive at a better Constitution for our country. I would not be here, if
I were going to defend anybody.
So, while it is true that the parliamentary system may be more responsive, I
would like to ask Commissioner Bernas: Does the semi-parliamentary system
deal
with problems like initiation and implementation of programs? Remember
that the Members of Parliament who were also Members of the Cabinet were
the
chairmen of the committees. They initiated and implemented programs like
those on public works. When they ran for reelection, they ran as incumbents,
and
they were perceived by the people as having undue advantage over the
other candidates. In other countries, how do they avoid such perception? I
am
referring to parliaments where Members of the Cabinet innovate, author or
sponsor programs which they themselves implement. Again when they run
for
FR. BERNAS: I think that for as long as you do not have a measure of
economic equality, then all other equalities or liberties become largely
ephemeral
because their protection depends on the economic balance. In other words,
when we draft the Constitution, we will deal with two things: First, we try to
identify values the values we want to protect and emphasize; second, we
design systems which will promote and protect those values. So, if we say
that
for us economic equality is a value which must, at all cost, be promoted,
then we must design systems which will insure that this value will be
protected.
BISHOP BACANI: Maybe some people are right when they say that, if you
want the economic situation of the poor to improve, then you must give
them more
political power, and this will enable them to rise up even in the economic
structure. That is why I would like to propose that the economic factor should
not be made the primary criterion of responsiveness. It is just an
observation.
The second question is: We Filipinos do not have a very strong national
consciousness at present. We are really building a nation now. Considering
this
factor, will a federal form of government go counter to the growth of national
consciousness at this stage of our national development?
FR. BERNAS: I would answer that question by saying that when you are
building a strong unity, you must first build strong individuals, because only
strong
R.C.C. NO. 3
Wednesday, June 4, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 3:22 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Felicitas S. Aquino.
Present
Bernas
Present
Alonto
Present*
Rosario Braid
Present
Aquino
Present
Brocka
Present
Azcuna
Present
Calderon
Present
Bacani
Present
Castro de
Present
Bengzon
Present
Colayco
Present
Bennagen
Present
Concepcion
Present
Davide
Present
Regalado
Present
Foz
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Garcia
Present*
Rigos
Present
Gascon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Guingona
Present*
Romulo
Present
Jamir
Present
Rosales
Present
Laurel
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Lerum
Present
Suarez
Present
Maambong
Present
Sumulong
Present
Monsod
Present
Tadeo
Present
Natividad
Present*
Tan
Present
Nieva
Present
Tingson
Present
Nolledo
Present
Treas
Present
Ople
Present
Uka
Present
Padilla
Present
Villacorta
Present
Quesada
Present
Villegas
Present
Rama
Present
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, just one minor correction on the Journal, if I
may. On page 20, line 4, change these three to AT LEAST TWO. So, lines 3
and
4 should read: . . . it could only be exercised with the cooperation of AT
LEAST TWO departments.
Incidentally, I would like to commend the Secretariat for making a better
summary than the presentation yesterday .
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the correction on page 20, line 4 of
the Journal of yesterdays session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
correction is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for the approval of the Journal, as
corrected.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the approval of the Journal as
corrected? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the Journal, as corrected, is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolutions on First
Reading and Communication, the President making the corresponding
references:
MR. DAVIDE: The cultural communities are composed of several tribes. Would
each tribe be allowed a representation?
MR. VILLACORTA: That would not be feasible.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, all those belonging to the cultural communities
will be entitled to so many number of seats, for instance, in the National
Assembly.
MR. VILLACORTA: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: But would the Commissioner not consider it unfair because
there are tribes which are more in number than the others? For instance,
could the
natives of Surigao del Sur be without representation at all?
MR. VILLACORTA: I think they would have to work it out among themselves.
MR. DAVIDE: Would that proposal be the same with respect to the other
sectors? For instance, must the farmers agree on one representation only?
MR. VILLACORTA: Depending on the number of seats allotted to their
particular sector.
MR. DAVIDE: Does the Commissioner have in mind the number of seats to be
allotted to every sector? Would it depend on their number?
MR. VILLACORTA: I think the percentage of population would be an important
factor to consider. In other words, we cannot possibly have the same number
of
farmers representatives as that coming from the lawyers sector since,
numerically speaking, there are more farmers than lawyers.
MR. DAVIDE: But if it would be flexible enough for every congress, the
number would have to be increased depending on the increase in the
population of the
particular sector.
MR. VILLACORTA: That sounds reasonable.
MR. DAVIDE: Basically, in the apportionment of seats for the National
Assembly, we consider the population of a particular area, say, one for every
250,000; but in that particular district of 250,000 we have already a
conglomeration of sectors. How would the Commissioner allocate the
composition of the
unclassified sector?
MR. VILLACORTA: The Commissioners question is not quite clear to me. I am
sorry.
MR. DAVIDE: Basically, in the apportionment of seats for the National
Assembly, we consider the number of the population. Let us assume that for
one
district with 250,000 people, one representation is allocated to that group.
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: But the 250,000 would itself be a conglomeration of several
sectors. How would we allocate now a representation for the unclassified
sector?
MR. VILLACORTA: The unclassified sectors would have to run at large. In
other words, we cannot possibly give all sectors in the Philippine society
representation, otherwise we will be saddled with a lot of seats for various
groupings. We would have to allocate the seats only to the major sectors.
MR. DAVIDE: Only to the major sectors?
MR. VILLACORTA: I made it clear that it should only be for the major sectors.
MR. DAVIDE: What would be the basis for determining the major sectors?
MR. VILLACORTA. It should be the number of members of the sectors.
MR. DAVIDE: Would we, therefore, come to a point where a particular sector,
which is not classified as major, would be without representation?
MR. VILLACORTA: Nothing would stop them from running at large. Could the
Commissioner give an example of a sector which would be unclassified?
MR. DAVIDE: For instance, the jobless or disabled persons.
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, but certainly they would have some kind of occupation
before they became jobless.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but there are so many citizens who are jobless. As a matter
of fact, the unemployment problem has grown so high. There are about three
million unemployed. I do not know if the former Minister of Labor,
Commissioner Ople, is still aware of the rise in unemployment problem. But,
definitely,
about three million Filipinos are without jobs, and millions more are under
employed.
MR. VILLACORTA: If the Commissioner strongly thinks that the jobless sector
should be given representation, I have nothing against it.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. In other words, in trying to allocate and accommodate
representations from all sectors especially the oppressed and the urban poor,
let us
also allocate another sector for the jobless.
MR. VILLACORTA: If the Commissioner so wishes, that could be considered.
MR. DAVIDE: That is necessary. But my main concern, really, is the
mechanics. We must allow full representation from every sector to make our
democracy
real, genuine, and participatory. But let us work on the mechanics.
Thank you.
MR. VILLACORTA: I cannot read the mind of Commissioner Suarez but I think
he was referring to Ka Joma not as a member of the Communist Party but as
a
teacher or to whatever sector he belongs.
REV. RIGOS: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: The short interpellation of Father Bernas brought out a very
important word which I want to clarify and that is the word equality What
is
the meaning of equality insofar as constitution-making is concerned, because
there is a saying that all men are created equal? A certain with said that is
not true; all men are created unequal. There seems to be truth in this. Some
are women, some are men, some are tall, some are short. Even identical
twins
are not really identical. And so, the way I understand equality is that men
are equal before God and before the law. Some are talented, some are not;
some are strong, some are weak. So, may I ask Father Bernas the meaning of
equality which we will strive and provide for in our draft Constitution?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Madam President. At present, in the literature on this
subject, the word equality is used but it is not meant to be a mathematical
equality. What is meant when there is an appeal to equality is that everyone
should have at least the minimum requirement to live with dignity. It is not
absolute equality, because even if we were to divide the world today into
equal parts so that each one would get absolutely the same share, within a
short
period we would be unequal again because of unequality of talents, and so
forth. What is important is that in a society, everyone should have the
opportunity to live with dignity. In other words, democracy should include a
guarantee of freedom from hunger, freedom from want and not just the
consecrated liberties that we usually talk of freedom of the press, freedom
of religion, and so forth.
MR. RODRIGO: May I go further, Madam President. Everybody should be
given by law the equal opportunity to earn his livelihood, at least the basic
needs of
life. Should the Constitution go farther than just giving equal opportunity?
Should it take positive steps to see to it that there is equality, at least in
providing the basic needs; or should it just provide the atmosphere that gives
everybody equal chances? However, if he is lazy, if he does not work, then
he does not get his basic needs. Or, should we say that even if one does not
work, the state will provide him with the basic needs?
FR. BERNAS: I believe that there should be some kind of penalty for those
who are unwilling to work. Certainly, there should be equality of opportunity.
But in our present situation, precisely to create this equality of opportunity,
the disadvantaged should at least initially be given more support in law so
that they could overcome some of the disadvantages they already have. And
this, again; I think is very closely related to the problem of structures.
In the 1935 Constitution, we had a social justice provision under the
declaration of principles. It was honored in speech, but it did not achieve an
and the majority, surface. The gaps are not only economic but also social
and cultural. We have a small, modern-educated and Western-oriented elite
on one
hand, and a large majority who live in traditional cultures, on the other. Our
middle class, which harmonizes the elite and the traditional culture, is
disappearing. Our culture of poverty is also a culture of passivity. Traditional
culture is indifferent to government because in the past decades,
government was a distant entity to them. Many had never seen a
government agent, except perhaps the military. Total development can only
happen if we have
a participant citizenry. But our educational systems, both formal and
nonformal, are not able to provide the political education and social
awareness
necessary, if we have to participate as a nation. But our educational and
communications systems are too centralized; they are neocolonial; they are
irrelevant to the needs of small communities which need skills tailored to the
economic and social realities.
Therefore, would a presidential, parliamentary, semi-parliamentary or a
federal type of government be able to close these gaps? Perhaps in our
consultations, when we interact with the people, the representatives of the
rural poor, the subsistence farmers and fishermen we focus on their basic
needs
and aspirations. Then as we catalogue the existing functions and powers of
the legislative and the executive, we should ensure that sharing of power to
the
deliver maximal benefits for the people who are in need of benefits? What
type of legislative system, for instance, can do something about the
educational
system? I think the inequality of opportunity is very much rooted in-the
inequality of educational opportunity. If we can find a legislative system that
is
responsive to this problem, and which in the allocation of the financial
resources of the people will emphasize education for the masses, then, we
know
that this kind of system will contribute very much to the upliftment of the
poor. So, I do not think that this constitutional body could create the
formula, but it should be able to create the structures which will deliver the
proper formula.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I make a suggestion in regard to the point raised by
Commissioner Bernas. Perhaps this body could formulate a system of
legislature
whereby the amount of property one owns can be used as a criterion.
Suppose 70 percent of our people are poor, having a low income, and only 5
percent are
rich, having a high income, in that case we will see that soon there will be
economic equality because those who constitute the 70 percent will make
sure
that they will also come near the opportunities, the privileges and the
possessions enjoyed by those who belong to the 5 percent. I do not believe
that
sectoral representation is the best in the sense that a certain fisherman will
not necessarily be the best representative of other fishermen; but I think
there is a common denominator, concern and aspiration of the people. They
know they constitute 70 percent of the people of the land and yet they get
only a
few of the opportunities for self-improvement. So, there may be a common
drive among them to bring about greater equality.
THE. PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, ito ay ilang paglilinaw lamang sa mga sinabi
ni Commissioner de los Reyes tungkol sa pagpili ng kinatawan. Ito ay tungkol
din
sa tanong ni Commissioner Rodrigo kung sino ang pipili sa kinatawan, at sa
tanong ni Commissioner Davide kung ang kinatawan ay manananggol o
magsasaka, at
kung sino ang dapat niyang katawanin. Pinag-usapan din natin ang tungkol
sa mga mangingisda, mga magbubukid at economic equality. Sinabi rin ni
Commissioner Rodrigo na mayroon daw pong mga taong tamad.
Lilinawin ko lang po ang sinabi ko kahapon na democractic representation in
organs of political power or form of government which will ensure the
broadest
class sectoral representation including proportional representation in
legislature. Ang ibig ko pong sabihin nito ay hindi po kamukha noong
panahon ni
MR. ROMULO: I cannot speak for the Chairman, but I think he has no
objection to that. Probably, that is the most expeditious way of doing it
because I am
sure each of us will have specific suggestions on particular sections.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: That will, of course, depend on the pleasure of the body
whether to take up the committee report in a caucus or in an open session.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, Commissioners Tadeo and Jamir and myself
have submitted a resolution calling for the creation of more committees like
the
Committee on Labor, Committee on Land Reform, Committee on Social
Justice and Committee on Rural and Community Development. We feel,
Madam President, that
these sectors which will be represented by the said committees deserve
equal prominence and projection. So, may we request the members of the
Committee on
Rules to take up this particular resolution when they discuss the proposed
rules which could lead eventually to the approval of our permanent Rules,
Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Romulo please answer whether or not
the Committee on Rules accepts this resolution mentioned?
MR. ROMULO: Pardon me, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Does the Commissioner know that there were actually warm
bodies sent by the respective sectors to represent them in the defunct
Batasang
Pambansa?
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, if I may say so, what Commissioner Ople
had under the Batasang Pambansa of Mr. Marcos was a sectoral
misrepresentation
rather than sectoral representation.
MR. OPLE: Yes. Of course, the Gentleman is expressing a valued opinion.
MR. VILLACORTA: I think I am stating a fact because the sectoral
representatives were not elected; the respective sectors were not even
consulted. They
were beholden to the President then and were appointed by Mr. Marcos.
MR. OPLE: That is precisely the point I would like to seek some enlightenment
about. During the period of the Batasang Pambansa, there were 14 sectoral
representatives: those representing the youth, the workers and the farmers. I
hope that one of them who is here will not later on stand up to protest
against discrimination because they were denied their pay whereas the other
elected Members of the Batasang Pambansa were allowed to collect their
pay for
services rendered. But in any case, the Commissioner might want to know,
as part of the background to his proposal, who chose the workers
representatives,
the sectoral representatives, the youth representatives, and the farmers
representatives in the Batasang Pambansa. Basically, the law provided for an
electoral college, but who composed the electoral college for workers? I think
Mr. Marcos saw to it that those who composed the electoral college were
capable of sympathizing with his policies. And so, mainly, the sectoral
representatives were drawn from the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
at that
time, which is not to say that the TUCP did not change its political position
later. Many of them supported President Aquino in the elections. Who chose
the farmers sectoral representatives? Not Commissioner Tadeo but the
Federation of Free Farmers, Huks, Vets, and FAITH, identified with Mr. Luis
Taruc,
and many other organizations like the Association of Land Reform
Beneficiaries and the Samahang Nayon. Therefore, they constituted the
electoral college
which nominated the sectoral representatives to the Batasang Pambansa,
and it was understandable to politicians anyway that Mr. Marcos would tend
to favor
names of nominees considered sympathetic to his own policies, if not to
himself.
This is half of the controversy. Are we to understand that in a future electoral
college for workers, the KMU will now substitute for the TUCP, on the same
grounds that the President considers them closer to her own basic political
thinking than the others? Will this mean that Jaime Tadeo of the Pagkakaisa
ng
Magbubukid will just substitute for the Federation of Free Farmers and for Mr.
Luis Tarucs Huk, Vets and FAITH organizations? Will this mean that in the
case of the students, Chito Gascon of the UP will substitute for the
Kabataang Barangay in the electoral colleges?
It is all very well to talk of giving all the disadvantaged sectors incapable of
otherwise winning elections a one-man-one-vote basis of seats in a
legislature; but there is at work what Malinowski calls the Iron Law of
Oligarchy, even for the disadvantaged sector. A small band of leaders will
emerge
through natural selection in order to speak for them. I do not think we ought
to lose sight of the fact that it was a lawyer, a full-time revolutionary,
the son of a distinguished family of noble heritage in Russia, who organized
the disadvantaged groups, the workers and the farmers. That was Vladimir
Lenin. There is, I repeat, an iron law of oligarchy. Any kind of mass-based
organizations will have to generate a small group that will speak for them,
negotiate for them, and perhaps install their representative in a deliberative
body.
The notion, therefore, that you can have a purely egalitarian structure is
somewhat flawed. You have to recognize the fact that a society functions
through
leaders. We have to recognize the fact that across 2,000 years of the
experience of democracy since Athens and since the forum at Rome, no one
has improved
on the one-man-one-vote as the basis for a democracy.
Now, of course, at this point, I feel like requesting Father Bernas to address
some questions concerning equality itself. I just wanted to give a
people, that the more elitist among them will represent them.
I also think it is an oversimplification to say that the KMU will be the favored
labor union by the President and that Ka Jimmys organization is the
favored farmers organization. I think that is also a very unparliamentary
remark.
MR. OPLE: I was citing a hypothetical example without any malice
whatsoever. This is a forum of pronounced biases and I have no objection to
these biases
being articulated if it is understood that they can be reciprocated in full. But
may I now request, if the Madam President agrees and the body agrees, that
the Honorable Bernas answer a few questions concerning equality as a
whole.
FR. BERNAS: I will be glad to.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Bernas yield?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, with pleasure.
MR. OPLE: I have been impressed with the presentation of Commissioner
Bernas on the value of equality. I dreamt at one time of going to the Ateneo
University, but my class origin would allow me only to go to the MLQ
University, which is not an admission of any distribution of ranks between
two
universities.
But equality has already been tested constitutionally and structurally through
a good period of human history, and we are very well acquainted with some
of
the major models that have emerged from the test of time. There is the
Soviet model the 1917 model; there is the American model which is not
exactly
representative of this type of democracy but is probably in most ways the
most familiar with us. There is also, it is said, the Japanese model. In the case
of the Soviet model, and let us admit it, also the Chinese model, I think the
thrust toward human equality is built-in.
The accent is in preventing inequality, which means that no one can grow
too rich. It is a scandal when there are so many who are very poor; which, of
course, does not prevent that system from generating its own inequalities.
May it interest you to know, since I am the Chairman of the Philippine-Soviet
Friendship Society, that in Moscow, there is a lane reserved exclusively for
the members of the Politburo, and if you are not part of that hierarchy, it is
prudent for you to stay out of that lane as a motorist. And, of course, it is
very well known in that country that unless you belong to the Communist
Party, you have no access to some of the facilities where goods from the
West are available on a highly selective and restrictive basis.
And yet, we also know that there are not too many millionaires in the Soviet
Union. There are 250,000 millionaires in the United States; in ruble terms,
there are probably less than one thousand in the Soviet Union, and there is
no question that there is greater economic equality in the Soviet Union.
Does this translate into political equality? Yes, one man, one vote. But you
have no choice of political party.
In the United States the economic equality is infinitely greater. The equality
of opportunity as such, perhaps, is also higher.
that we, from the sectoral group, opposed these two bills and had extended
debates on the subject. Minister Ople, who was the Chairman of the
Committee on
Labor, is here and can attest to this.
As a matter of fact, I remember that there was only one proclamation by the
President calling for a special session as a result of our opposition to
Cabinet Bill No. 49. Because of our opposition to Cabinet Bill No. 49, the
approval of his bill was delayed. And so, in order to expedite its approval, the
President called the Batasang Pambansa to a special session.
I have a lot more to say, but I am requesting the Members of the Commission
to read the Minutes of the committee meetings, the Journals and the Records
of
the Batasang Pambansa to confirm what I have just said. In the case of the
Regular Batasang Pambansa, it is correct to say that we were appointed by
the
President, but the appointment was the result of the provision of law that
was approved by the Batasan. I remember that we stayed up to ,about four
oclock
in the morning in the committee discussing this provision.
However, it does not mean, Madam President, that because we were
appointed by President Marcos, we were creatures of President Marcos. This
Representation
has never been a creature of any President. I have served several Presidents
and I have been appointed by them even if I did not vote for them. The last
example of this is the present. I did not vote for President Aquino. I voted for
Mr. Marcos and I did not know I was to be chosen by her to represent
labor. When President Quirino ran and Senator Laurel opposed him, I voted
for Senator Laurel but later on, Quirino appointed me to the Labor
Management
Advisory Council. In the case of Mr. Garcia, I did not vote for him; I voted for
Mr. Yulo. Later on, I was appointed by President Garcia to be a member of
the Social Security Commission. In the next election after that, I voted for
President Garcia, not for Mr. Macapagal. Later on, President Macapagal
reappointed me as a member of the Social Security Commission. So it
seemed that it was my luck to be appointed by the very person I did not vote
for.
Madam President, I just want to defend myself from the statement that
because I was chosen by President Marcos in the interim Batasang
Pambansa, I was then
his creature. That is not true. And even if I had been appointed by him, it
does not mean that I will follow him. Even in this Commission, Madam
President,
I will be independent but at the same time I will have to vote in accordance
with instructions from my sector. When I had my appointment, it said: Labor
Leader Eulogio Lerum which means that I am representing the labor sector
and that I will be bound by instructions from it. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Commissioner Lerum.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session.
It was 4:59 p. m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:26 p.m., the session was resumed
discuss our economic problems. I would also like to agree with what
Commissioner Bernas said that the structure of government should be
expressive of the
value of the people.
Iyon lamang po.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I have been listening to the
discussions in this Assembly and I believe that we should pay more attention
to the
substance of government rather than form so that the government will truly
be of the people, for the people and by the people. Ayon sa sinabi nga ni Ka
Jimmy Tadeo, isang pamahalaan na tunay na para sa masang Pilipino.
The French, in their declaration of the rights of men and citizens issued in
1789, declared that the inalienable rights of man are liberty, property,
security and the right to resist oppression. Under this banner, the rising
capitalists of France rallied the other members of society the workers,
peasants and intellectuals. This is what is actually happening now in our
country the fight against the special privileges of feudalism.
By the time the 1795 Constitution of France was passed, the right to resist
oppression no longer seemed desirable as the new rulers substituted
equality
for it equality before the law and not economic equality. These rights set
free the productive forces of private enterprise then, the necessary
foundation of economic progress and proclaimed an almost unfettered
individual ownership of property for the purpose of profit making. Liberty and
But to accomplish these goals, I submit that we have to change our concept
of property which will perhaps be discussed more extensively when we come
to
tackle the principles of our government, the economic system, whether we
shall have capitalism, socialism and other related subjects.
The subject for today and yesterday, as I understand it, is merely the form
and structure of our government the manner of electing our officials, how
to
remove them, if they do not meet the expectations of the people, who should
be given more opportunities to participate actively in the affairs of the
government. The right to choose an official through an election does not
seem to be enough. Oftentimes, people make the wrong choice and they
have to wait
for another election in order to terminate the unsatisfactory services of their
chosen representatives. And what is worse is that the so-called peoples
representatives do not become their true representatives but protectors of
vested interests inimical to the general welfare. And they enact laws to
protect
vested interests and not laws for the masses.
What we should study, therefore, because we have given preferential
treatment to the form of government, is a device by which the masses of our
people
could prevent or minimize the repetition of their mistakes and how they
could participate continuously in the affairs of the government in the event
that
their chosen representatives fail to do their job.
them to participate in a more direct and effective manner in the affairs of our
government uninterruptedly and continuously, not only during elections.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that the Vice-President, the
Honorable Ambrosio B. Padilla, be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President, the Honorable Ambrosio B. Padilla, is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, we all agree that a constitution must not
only guarantee the rights of the people, but it should be an instrument of the
people for their own promotion and welfare.
In this freewheeling discussion as to the type of the new constitution
presidential, parliamentary, modified or mixed we must all agree that
there are
many problems that have existed and are still existing, among them are:
unemployment, poverty, lack of opportunity for work, the low standard of
many of
our people for a decent life with dignity. These many problems, mainly
economic or financial, will remain with us for gradual solution, whether we
adopt a
presidential or a parliamentary system. Many of these problems cannot be
solved by simply drafting a good constitution. Many of these problems, if not
all,
will have to be solved by appropriate legislative measures to be adopted in
consonance with the new charter or fundamental law.
The 1935 Constitution has been our fundamental law during the
Commonwealth and after Independence in 1946. Many consider the product
of the 1934-1935
Constitutional Convention as a good Constitution. The term of the President
was for six years without reelection, but President Manuel L. Quezon
suggested
and supported two (2) constitutional amendments: (1) the one term of six
years to four years with only one reelection and (2) the senatorial districts,
which were composed of several provinces, were made national for a Senate
whose twenty-four members were elected nationwide eight Senators
every two
years. That 1935 Constitution, Madam President, was considered satisfactory
and even desirable. Of course, it cannot be perfect, as no human product is
perfect. Our history records that our elected Presidents, President Roxas and
the other Presidents that followed him Quirino, Magsaysay, Garcia and
Macapagal were only elected for one term. Mr. Marcos was elected
President in 1965 and was reelected in 1969. The 1935 Constitution explicitly
provides
that the maximum term of a president is only eight (8) years. But Mr. Marcos
wanted to perpetuate himself in power. When the Congress decided to call
for a
constitutional convention in 1971, its Senators and Representatives did not
intend to change the basic structure of the presidential system in favor of
another system, like the parliamentary system. That sentiment was shared, I
believe, by the five Senators in this Commission, Senators Sumulong,
Rosales,
with the prayers of peace-loving citizens, the rosaries of priests and nuns,
the courage and determination of many families composed of cause-oriented
or
mass-based sectoral representatives, and, more, of the united Filipino
people, with the grace of Almighty God, that effected in our beloved country
what
could never have been even imagined the toppling of the dictatorship in
those four glorious days of February 22 to 25. So, we now have a new
government,
established and fully supported by the sovereign Filipino people. Ours is a
legitimate government recognized not only by the Supreme Court but by the
international community of nations, and we are now in this Commission to
draft our new, permanent Constitution. Naturally, it must be a Constitution
for
the people, a Constitution to serve the best interest of all the people
constituting the entire nation, not a Constitution for the privileged elite, not
even for some groups, political, economic or otherwise, not even for sectoral
or regional or local considerations, but a Constitution that will satisfy the
primordial ends of a fundamental law, and that is to insure the blessings of
democracy. We always add, with the blessings of truth, justice and
freedom,
and I hope with progress so that we may move forward, not only to give this
government political stability, but also economic reconstruction, for all
sectors in the entire nation to solve gradually, at least, the many problems
confronting our nation and our people. We all know that these problems are
very difficult and the solution cannot be sudden. But we must lay down the
framework through a Constitution that will be responsive to the needs, to the
ideals and aspirations of the entire nation, of one united Filipino people.
Madam President, during the period that I was a member of the Senate, the
coordinate importance of Congress was sometimes being subjected to the
predominance of the Executive. And that was partly the fault of Congress,
because in enacting laws for projects and appropriating funds therefor, the
disbursements always exceeded the estimates of available income in the
budget. And so there was always the colatilla, subject to availability of
funds.
And invariably every year the appropriations by Congress were far in excess
of the available funds for expenditures in the budget. The result was that the
Chief Executive could not implement all the legislative measures of
Congress. He was practically given the discretion to choose which among the
many
appropriated projects would be implemented by him. And that was one
consistent weakness, not only during the time of President Marcos but even
before him,
making the members of Congress subservient to the Executive by requesting
him to please implement a particular project affecting probably a particular
municipality, province or region. If that was a defect in past administrations,
which prevailed every year for many years during my incumbency in
Congress,
resorting to, or depending upon, the central government even for the
solution of some local, provincial or regional problems. The only problem, in
my
opinion, is: What is the extent or the scope of this autonomy to local
governments? In the same manner: What should be the limitations to the
exercise of
the sovereign powers of government, like taxation, police power and eminent
domain?
I heard our good friend, Ambassador Abubakar, yesterday speak on the
legislative assembly in Region IX or Region XII that it is functioning well. I
inquired from him if the autonomy that was mentioned in the Tripoli
Agreement of 1976 is functioning and if so, why the Muslims still complain
and
sometimes resort to arms under the MNLF, and, worse still, why others are
even suggesting secession or dismemberment. I have had occasion to read
the
Tripoli Agreement and it provides very clearly that the grant of autonomy,
which is not defined in that agreement, is to be exercised within the
jurisdiction and territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. So
even under the Tripoli Agreement, there is no basis whatever of a claim for
separation or dismemberment because that would be very destructive, if not
suicidal.
I do not intend to continue much longer, as I have already imposed upon the
benevolence of our fellow Commissioners, but I would like to end by saying: I
believe that it is accepted by all that a constitution, as the foundation or the
fundamental basis of government, is only the instrument of the people. And
of time to prepare for those hearings, to make sure that they are meaningful.
So, I move that the creation of that Committee be amended to make it a
Committee on Public Hearings and to expand the scope of the hearings to
more than
just the form of government.
THE PRESIDENT: This is just to refresh our understanding. The motion, as
approved yesterday, was to create a special committee that will conduct
public
hearings and the subject was limited to the structure of government. Now we
have the motion of Commissioner Monsod to expand the jurisdiction or the
subject that will be taken up during those hearings so as to include other
matters that may have a relation to the drafting of the Constitution. Is that
correct, Commissioner Monsod?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any comments on that particular motion?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you, Madam President. I have a comment on the motion
of Commissioner Monsod. I filed a resolution this afternoon to expand the
scope of
the Committee on Forms of Government or, if necessary, to form another
committee in order that the public hearings that we envision to be held in
the next
few days all over the country will not be limited to structures of government
but will also delve into the fundamental values of our people.
MR. MONSOD: The proposal to constitute this committee does not preclude
simultaneous hearings in many provinces. The proposal is merely for us to
have a
lead time to organize those hearings. For example, the hearings may be held
in 26 places or two per region during weekends. And the various committees
will
then coordinate with this committee on the organization of public hearings.
This committee will send informational materials ahead and look for
organizations in each locality that will help organize these hearings, so that
the hearings will be meaningful.
The experience of many organizations is that when hearings of this kind are
organized, the lead time is at least two weeks. We just want to be able to
organize ourselves better.
MS NIEVA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nieva is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: I would like to supplement that, and maybe this might clarify the
point raised by Commissioner Rodrigo.
The Bishops-Businessmen Conference has been holding national
consultations on the issues of national recovery and the new Constitution. As
Commissioner
Monsod said, it does take time before we can bring the issues to the people.
There has to be set up an organization in the different provinces to prepare
and get the people whom we really want to attend, as we do not want only
the elite. I think the purpose of the public hearings is to hear the masses of
our
people who are generally not heard and not informed. We want them to be
present, and to do that takes a big organization. In our case, we had to have
at
least three weeks to start this project and even then, we covered only six
provinces. This is, of course, due to our limitations and this body may have
much more power.
I agree with Commissioner Monsod that the task of this committee will be to
organize. In the actual public hearings, practically all the committees
involved will be included. The first thing to do is to get this planning
committee organized so that it can start planning and organizing.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Rodrigo satisfied?
MR. RODRIGO: If the function is organizational or the preparation of things in
the provinces, can that not be accomplished better by our Secretariat
instead of a separate committee? The Secretariat will also be in the position
to know whether we have funds for transportation expenses and staff
support.
We cannot just go to the provinces without stenographers to take down the
suggestions coming from the public.
May I ask that the consideration of this matter be postponed? I am not
against it; I just want to have more time to study the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Monsod say? Commissioner
Rodrigo is asking for deferment until tomorrow.
MR. MONSOD: I am willing to have it deferred, Madam President, but may I
request that we take up the matter as soon as possible?
MR. FOZ: In connection with the previous question that I raised and the
answer given by the Special Committee on Rules through Commissioner
Sumulong I
understand that the Committee will submit its report on Friday morning I
would like to suggest that the Commission meet in caucus Friday afternoon,
since
the session will be in the morning. I suggest that we do not leave this
building after the session and that we proceed to a caucus, preferably at two
oclock, to discuss the Rules.
I move, therefore, that the Commission meet in caucus at two oclock in the
afternoon of Friday, to take up the report of the Committee on Rules.
SEVERAL MEMBERS: I second the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any comment? Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: If the Committee on Rules is prepared to make a report on Friday
morning, it might be better to go into a caucus Friday morning before we
meet
in session so that the session itself will be brief. So, I will amend the motion
of Commissioner Foz, if he agrees, so that we can meet in caucus Friday
morning, and meet in plenary session in the afternoon.
MR. FOZ: But, Madam President, I think under our Provisional Rules, the
plenary session on a Friday is supposed to be held at nine oclock in the
morning.
Of course, we can always decide to meet in caucus even in the morning. So,
if the committee report will be ready in the morning, then I will accept the
amendment of Commissioner Rigos.
THE PRESIDENT: May the Chair be informed as to what particular time in the
morning of Friday the committee report will be available so as to afford the
Members time to go over it before they discuss it, let us say, in the afternoon
of Friday?
MR. SUMULONG: Madam President, the Committee on Rules met yesterday
and this afternoon. Tomorrow, we will probably be holding our last meeting,
so, we will
be ready to submit our report to the Commission on Friday.
I would like to second the suggestion that we suspend consideration of
creating a special committee for the purpose of holding hearings on the
question of
form of government because there might be a duplication, Madam President.
We already have 15 standing committees by virtue of the Rules provisionally
adopted by the Commission, and among which are those on the executive
power and the legislative power. The question of form of government will be
referred
to these standing committees so, if we create an ad hoc or a special
committee to study the forms of government, there will be a duplication of
work. And
if we allow the special committee to hold hearings in different places, the
standing committee might have to do the same in order not to be blamed.
While I may grant that the question of form of government may be very
important, such that it has to be taken up as soon as possible, it may be
prejudicial. Precisely, when we consider adopting a working draft, we will
have to decide on the form of government that will be preferred by the
then let us go home to our provinces on our own. For instance, I am going
home this weekend to the best province of the Philippines next to Ilocos
Norte
Negros Occidental. When I come back, Madam President, I will know.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Commissioner Tingson.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The point is this: Yesterday, we already approved the
creation of a special committee. Now, Commissioner Monsod moved to
amplify the
jurisdiction or authority of this committee. Then, there was a suggestion to
defer it, to which Commissioner Monsod agreed. So, there is nothing more to
discuss. The only point the Chair would like to know is whether the motion of
Commissioner Monsod will be deferred until tomorrow or until after the
Committee on Rules will have submitted its report.
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I have already agreed to the deferment of
my motion, but perhaps I just want to make one small comment on the
observation of
the Honorable Tingson.
If I follow, his logic is: why have hearings at all.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the motion of Commissioner Monsod is deferred until
after the Committee on Rules has submitted its report on Friday morning.
Maybe we
can take it up first during the caucus.
MR. FOZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: I move for the previous question so that we will vote on my motion
to hold a caucus on Friday morning upon receipt of the report of the
Committee
on Rules.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, just to clarify, the caucus will be after the
scheduled session on Friday at nine oclock.
MR. FOZ: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other comment? Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, since it was mentioned that the matter of
logistics might be involved, I suggest that the Committee on Personnel and
Budget
also submit its report at noontime of Friday so that both reports can be
considered in the caucus.
THE PRESIDENT: So, is Commissioner Regalado suggesting that we have the
caucus in the afternoon?
MR. REGALADO: I suggest that we consider not only the Rules but also the
report of the Committee on Personnel and Budget.
THE PRESIDENT: But then at what particular time? Let us decide that.
MR. FOZ: Is the suggestion to hold a caucus on both Personnel and the
Rules?
MR. REGALADO: Since it was mentioned that some logistics may be involved
in connection with these hearings, I suggest that the report on Personnel and
Finance be submitted also.
MR. FOZ: But that is a different matter which has been deferred, Madam
President. The motion, which has been approved, is to hold a caucus after
the
session on Friday morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion to hold a caucus
immediately after the session on Friday morning to take up the report of the
Committee
on Rules, and if there is time, the report of the Committee on Personnel and
Budget?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I think that immediately after the session,
we will take lunch. So, the caucus should be at two oclock in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us put that to a vote. As many as are in favor of holding
the caucus in the morning after the session, say yea.
SEVERAL MEMBERS: Yea.
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are against, say nay. (Silence) The motion is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for the adjournment of the session until
tomorrow at three oclock in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at three oclock in
the afternoon.
It was 6:45 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the Roll Call.
R.C.C. NO. 4
Thursday, June 5, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 3:12 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Adolfo S. Azcuna.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. AZCUNA: O God, help us to be true to the great privilege and
responsibility You have given us. Give us a sense of proportion, wisdom of
mink? clearness
of thinking, truth in speech and love in our hearts, that we may work in
peace and harmony.
Help us, O God, to blend freshness in youth with wisdom in age.
Finally, grant that as we propose a new charter for our people, we heed the
counsel of an old poet and storyteller: Let me write the songs of a nation,
and I care not who writes its laws. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Brocka
Present
Alonto
Present *
Calderon
Present
Aquino
Present
Castro de
Present
Azcuna
Present
Colayco
Present
Bacani
Present
Concepcion
Present
Bengzon
Present
Davide
Present
Bennagen
Present
Foz
Present
Bernas
Present
Garcia
Present*
Rosario Braid
Present
Gascon
Present
Guingona
Present *
Rigos
Present
Jamir
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Laurel
Present
Romulo
Present
Lerum
Present
Rosales
Present
Maambong
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Monsod
Present
Suarez
Present
Natividad
Present *
Sumulong
Present
Nieva
Present
Tadeo
Present
Nolledo
Present *
Tan
Present
Ople
Present *
Tingson
Present
Padilla
Present *
Treas
Present
Quesada
Present
Uka
Present
Rama
Present
Villacorta
Present
Regalado
Present
Villegas
Present
Reyes de los
Present
here on the floor: (1) That the powers of government must be limited; (2)
That the freedom of all, especially of those who have less in life, must be
guaranteed. I think this was expressed very well by Commissioner Bernas;
(3) That economic equality must be encouraged and defended; (4) That
popular
participation must be insured; and (5) That peoples organizations must be
recognized. I think these were some of the salient points that have come out
during the different interventions.
At the same time, I would like to register a strong disagreement with
Commissioners Ople and Lerum on the thoughts they expressed yesterday.
With all due
respect, I want to make my position rather strong because I do not agree
with their thoughts. Therefore, I would like to rise in defense of the ideas of
sectoral representation together with regional representation. I believe that
to truly empower the people, there must be measures providing for genuine
sectoral representation in whatever form of government we have. In their
expositions yesterday, they tried to show how the old dispensation practiced
the
politics of exclusion, that there was no real effort to try to find out who
among the different sectors of society, especially those who composed the
majority, are the true representatives of those sectors. They were very often
marginalized from political practice and from political decisions that
affected their lives.
This Constitution must precisely empower those voiceless and powerless
people who normally, even with a one-man-one-vote approach, have no real
effective
public hearings be held in different parts of the country or only within Metro
Manila?
MR. GARCIA: Precisely, the resolution I have here with me, in fact, has been
an ongoing project of the Ateneo Center for Social Policy headed by Father
Bernas and the Lakas ng Sambayanan with which I work. We have actually
been conducting public hearings throughout the country. We have been
going to
various parts of Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao. And this resolution is the
result of preliminary public hearings where something like 150 organizations
have already participated in. Therefore, the thrust would be to continue
these public hearings because a lot of interest has been generated, and we
can
reach a lot of people who have sometimes far better ideas than we would
expect. We could harness these ideas in drafting the Constitution.
MR. NOLLEDO: I was thinking that the people of Metro Manila come from the
different provinces.
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is why they say that if there is a revolution and Manila
falls, the whole country falls. Considering that the group of Commissioner
Garcia has already conducted public hearings in different parts of the
country, would it not suffice if public hearings were held in Manila? That was
the
original contemplation of my urgent motion. Then perhaps we can wire the
governors, the city mayors, the executives of the different political units to
inform the Members of the Constitutional Commission as to the sentiments
of the people from their observations.
Commissioners Foz, Suarez, Tadeo, and the others that the 1935 and the
1973 Constitutions be the working drafts. Immediately, we proceed to public
hearings
to be conducted by the different committees, the functions of which are
relevant to the form of government, without prejudice to hearing further
proposals
from different sectors of our society. Will the Commissioner agree to that?
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, that sounds a good idea, but others might
have better ideas. At this point, I have not given it much thought.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, inasmuch as the honorable Commissioner
Garcia mentioned my name a while ago that he did not exactly agree with
what I said
yesterday, may I have the privilege to give a short rejoinder.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner will please proceed.
MR. TINGSON: I am sorry if I was misunderstood yesterday afternoon. I
suppose I was thinking of the time when we had to dismiss and I had to
speak quite
hurriedly. But may I, in a sense, apologize to Commissioner Monsod that I
was not against his proposal for public hearings. May I also correct
Commissioner
Garcias wrong impression, because certainly this humble Representation is
all for hearing from our people before we write any provision into our
Constitution. What I was trying to say, Madam President, is: Inasmuch as we
are mandated to finish this Constitution within three months, why do we not
take advantage of our weekends and fly to our hometowns or districts and
dialogue with our people? Madam President, I remember when I was a
humble Member
of the 1971 Constitutional Convention it took us two full days to travel to a
certain place like Davao, Cebu or Iloilo. When we arrived at a certain place,
it was the people belonging to the upper crust of society who attended our
committee meetings and who got an appointment to talk to us. The people
from the
barrio did not have the chance to talk to us because they did not even have
enough money to pay for their bus fares from Kabankalan to Bacolod, for
instance. That is what I was trying to say yesterday. Let us all go home on
weekends and commiserate with our people and dialogue with them. Madam
President, perhaps, we can have a one-page advertisement in the
newspapers for those who are really interested to come to Manila inasmuch
as we are
laboring under a time constraint. Also, the President of this country could
issue a decree providing that all kinds of mails addressed by the people from
the barrio to the Members of the Commission be postage-free. That is what I
was trying to say, and I am sorry if I was misunderstood by my colleagues,
Commissioners Garcia and Monsod.
Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I understand from Commissioner Garcia that there were public
hearings conducted by a group. If Commissioner Garcia is ready with the
results of
the time constraint would not allow us to hold as many public hearings as we
would want to, even if we go out of Manila, for there is also the public
demand that people should be heard in this Constitution we are going to
draft.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. Instead of
burdening the President with this particular duty, may I suggest that the task
be given to the Secretary-General by authority of the President of the
Commission.
MR. RAMA: I accept the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May the Chair make this particular inquiry: Can this be in
the form of an advertisement in the newspaper?
MR. RAMA: The Secretariat should decide what form it should take.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion has been amended.
Is there any objection to the motion? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that the Acting Assistant Floor Leader be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Calderon is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, ladies and gentlemen of this Commission:
Yesterday, the Honorable Ambrosio Padilla, who as Senator when the 1971
Constitutional Convention was convoked, gave us an insight into the thinking
and intention of the then Congress of the Philippines which passed the law
calling that convention. Commissioner Padilla said that it was not the
intention of the Congress at that time to change the form of the Philippine
R.C.C. NO. 5
Friday, June 6, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:16 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by Reverend Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
FR. BERNAS: Let us just pause for a while and be aware that we are in the
presence of the Almighty Who cares about us and about our nation more
than we can
ever imagine.
PRAYER
Almighty Father, enlighten our minds, teach our hearts to love, and
strengthen our wills to do what is right. We place ourselves into Your hands
because we
know that without You, we can accomplish nothing. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present
Castro de
Present
Alonto
Absent
Colayco
Present
Aquino
Present
Concepcion
Present
Azcuna
Present
Davide
Present
Bacani
Present *
Foz
Present *
Bengzon
Present *
Garcia
Present
Bennagen
Present
Gascon
Present
Bernas
Present
Guingona
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Jamir
Present *
Brocka
Present
Laurel
Present *
Calderon
Present
Lerum
Present *
Maambong
Present
Romulo
Present
Monsod
Present
Rosales
Present
Natividad
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Nieva
Present
Suarez
Present
Nolledo
Present
Sumulong
Present *
Ople
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Padilla
Present
Tan
Present
Quesada
Present
Tingson
Present
Rama
Present
Treas
Present
Regalado
Present
Uka
Present
Reyes de los
Present *
Villacorta
Present *
Rigos
Present
Villegas
Present
Rodrigo
Present
I was out of the hall when the discussion on the Borneo claim was going on,
so I could not make out what my distinguished colleagues had debated about
on
the matter. There was nothing, therefore, in the record to show that I had
remarks to make.
But this morning, I would like to take a few minutes, for the information and
reference of this honorable Commission, to say something about the position
that I, as well as the people of Sulu whom I represent, take with respect to
the question of the Borneo claim.
I think the honorable Commission has displayed a high sense of wisdom
when it decided that the question of the claim to Sabah should not be
included in the
draft of the Constitution. The acquisition of this particular territory was by
accident, when Angkang and Sangkalan came to the rescue of the Brunei
Sultanate, which, out of gratitude, gave away a large territorial portion in
what was known later as British North Borneo. But the Sultan of Sulu, with
the
recognition of the Spanish Government in Manila, had exercised jurisdictional
rights over the territory for several years until he executed the
controversial lease to the British North Borneo Company, the one single act
of the Sultanate of Sulu that brought the Government of the Philippines and
that of Malaysia to a clash for a contest of ownership. It was an accident of
history that Sabah became part of the Sultanate of Sulu and was
subsequently
leased as padjak, which means a lasting lease upon payment of the agreed
amount of rent. I suggest that we leave this matter to diplomatic
understanding
in order to resolve the differences between Malaysia and the Philippines on
the question of Sabah.
We, the people of Sulu and those who have resided in the area over a long
period of time, have always been communicating with the people of Sabah
without
much restrictions on the basis of traditionally accepted practices such as novisa entry. This relationship is age-old such that today there are many
relatives of the people of Sulu who are residents by right of birth in Sabah.
Again, I wish to convey my congratulations to the Members of this honorable
Commission for voting yesterday when I was unable to participate for the
noninclusion of the Sabah claim in the draft of the Constitution. If there is
ever a right for the Philippines to claim the Sabah territory, it is a right
based on the reward handed to the aforementioned Angkang and Sangkalan
by the Sultan of Brunei.
And on the basis of the action of the Commission, I think the people of Sulu,
as well as of Mindanao, are glad because of the wisdom of the Members of
the
Commission in not including this claim in the Constitution that we are going
to draft.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, before we proceed further, there is still another
item in the agenda and that is the Reference of Business. So, we will consider
the remarks of Commissioner Abubakar as inserted later on.
who said he was absent yesterday, that there was no vote taken on the
question of Sabah. I think some newsmen interviewed some of the Members
and each
Member gave his opinion but there was no vote.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, before we adjourn, may I be allowed to
make some brief remarks on a very important issue that we discussed
yesterday
regarding public hearings during which our distinguished Acting Floor Leader
made a motion which was approved by this body.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
Our distinguished Acting Floor Leader proposed that organizations, such as
those mentioned by Commissioner Garcia, that have held and perhaps are
continuing to hold public hearings, be invited to send materials or reports
concerning the consensus reached in those public hearings. I would like to
suggest that the Commission, through the President, solicit the assistance or
cooperation of prestigious and responsible organizations which, as far as we
know, have not yet conducted public hearings but which have nationwide
networks in the form of clubs or units. And I have in mind civic organizations
like
the Rotary, the Jaycees or the Lions, professional and other organizations
including the media, labor, student and faculty groups. We should request
the
Therefore, I move that we adjourn the session until Monday at three oclock,
and in the meantime we hold caucus.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
session is adjourned until Monday at three oclock in the afternoon.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the Roll Call.
R.C.C. NO. 6
Monday, June 9, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 3:28 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Teodoro C. Bacani.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
BISHOP BACANI: Before the Prayer, I just like to state here that on June 1 the
Holy Father asked the pilgrims in Rome to pray for our Constitutional
Commission and then united his prayers with us.
PRAYER
Father, bless our work today. Let us know what You want for our country.
Make us pursue our work with diligence, love, patience and harmony. Bring
lasting
results to our efforts and give us the joy of knowing we are serving You and
our countrymen. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present
Natividad
Present
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present *
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
the Commission now meeting in plenary session so that this will become the
Rules of the Commission permanently which will guide the proceedings of
this
body during the time that we are deliberating on the formulation of a new
constitution.
I, therefore, respectfully ask that the Commission now formally adopt the
Rules contained in Proposed Resolution No. 50 as the ultimately revised Rules
of
the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: May I propose an amendment.
At our caucus last night, Sections 30 and 31 on page 13 of the Provisional
Rules were deleted. However, I think the last sentence in Section 31 should
remain. That sentence reads: On the day set for its consideration, the
resolution shall be voted on Second Reading. So my amendment is, after
the end of
Section 26 entitled Amendments, and appearing on page 14 of the new
proposal, to add a new section, SECTION 27 which shall read: ON THE DAY
SET FOR ITS
CONSIDERATION, THE RESOLUTION, AS AMENDED, SHALL BE VOTED ON
SECOND READING. The reason is that after the amendments, the thing to do
is to vote on the
resolution, as amended, before going to Third Reading. However, when we
deleted Section 30 and 31 of the Provisional Rules, even the sentence which
says:
MR. RODRIGO: It says TEN OR MORE MEMBERS or TEN? But all the
memberships in the different committees are in odd numbers. So, TEN
really would be a
little awkward because there is no committee with ten members.
MR. DAVIDE: For clarification purposes, Madam President, the wording of the
amendment is MORE THAN TEN, and the second is TEN OR LESS.
MR. RODRIGO: It should be LESS THAN TEN.
MR. DAVIDE: Accepted less than ten, because there is really no committee
with a membership of ten.
THE PRESIDENT: The sponsor has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment as amended by
Commissioner Rodrigo and accepted by the Chairman of the Committee on
Rules? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment, as amended, is hereby approved
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I was just talking to the proponent of the
amendment and he agreed to a further change.
MR. DAVIDE: For the record, the amendment to the amendment qualifying
vote to AFFIRMATIVE VOTE has been accepted and, therefore, it will
read:
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF ALL ITS MEMBERS.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the modification in Commissioner
Davides amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
ADOPTION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 50
Rodrigo, Lerum, Padilla, Tan, Colayco, Tadeo, Villegas, Bennagen, Bacani and
Natividad, members.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Chair calls the attention of the Acting Floor Leader that necessary
adjustments in committee membership may be made later on by the Chair
as
recommended by the Members.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that membership to the committees be
subject to changes or adjustments by the President as recommended by the
Members.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for the election of the following officers
and members of the Committee on the Legislative: Commissioner Davide,
Chairman; Commissioner Azcuna, Vice-Chairman; and Commissioners
Sumulong, Abubakar, Calderon, Rodrigo, Alonto, Aquino, Jamir, Concepcion,
Lerum, de los
Reyes, Guingona, Garcia and Treas, members.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for the election of the following officers
and members of the Committee on the Executive: Commissioner Sumulong,
Chairman; Commissioner Regalado, Vice-Chairman; and Commissioners
Rama, Calderon, Alonto, Concepcion, Foz, Maambong, Jamir, Davide,
Natividad, Sarmiento,
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move for the election of the following officers
and members of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers:
Commissioner Monsod, Chairman; Commissioner Colayco, Vice-Chairman;
and Commissioners Nieva, Azcuna, Padilla, Tan, Calderon, Tingson, Romulo,
Brocka and
Nolledo, members.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move for the election of the following officers
and members of the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony:
Commissioner Villegas, Chairman; Commissioner Tadeo, Vice-Chairman;
Commissioners Gascon, Bennagen, Romulo, Monsod, Sarmiento, Bengzon,
Ople, Suarez and
Uka, members.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, honorable Floor Leader. There are four
additional members to said Committee because the membership has been
increased to 15:
Commissioners Bacani, Natividad, Foz and Villacorta.
MR. RAMA: I move that the Commissioners mentioned by the President be
included as members of the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for the election of the following officers
and members of the Committee on General Provisions: Commissioner
Rosario
Braid, Chairman; Commissioner Bacani, Vice- Chairman; and Commissioners
Rigos, Brocka, Natividad, Uka, de Castro, Gascon, Nieva, Maambong and
Bennagen,
members.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for the election of the following officers
and members of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions:
Commissioner Suarez, Chairman; Commissioner Ople, Vice-Chairman and
Commissioners de los Reyes, Foz, Padilla, Maambong and de Castro,
members.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for the election of the following officers
and members of the Steering Committee: Commissioner Bengzon, Chairman;
Commissioner Rama, Vice-Chairman; and Commissioners de los Reyes,
Guingona, Romulo, Bernas, Rodrigo, Nieva, Quesada and Alonto, members.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for the election of the following officers
and members of the Committee on Privileges: Commissioner Abubakar,
Chairman;
MR. RAMA: With the unanimous consent of the body, I move for an increase
in the membership of the Committee on Social Justice and Social Services
from 15
to 17.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion of the Acting Floor Leader to increase the membership of the
Committee on
Social Justice and Social Services from 15 to 17 is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I now move for the election of the following
officers and members of the Committee on Social Justice and Social Services:
Commissioner Nieva, Chairman; Commissioner Gascon, Vice-Chairman; and
Commissioners Tadeo, Monsod, Aquino, Brocka, Suarez, Uka, Quesada,
Treas, Garcia,
Lerum, Tan, Villacorta, Bennagen, Bengzon and Romulo, members.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Tingson be recognized
for a simple motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I am very happy to inform this body of the
very favorable reaction of the public, at least from my province of Negros
Occidental, to what we have done so far. And when I mentioned the
possibility of this body making representations to give the pueblo franking
privilege,
they also were very elated about it.
In fact, the Chair wishes to recommend and suggest that the election be held
today, before we adjourn. We have already formalized our committees, so
the
election of the Floor Leader and the two Assistant Floor Leaders is very
important, considering their membership in the Steering Committee.
In the Rules that we have approved, the body recalls that the Floor Leader
and the Assistant Floor Leaders are ex-officio members of the Steering
Committee. So if the body is ready for the election, the Chair is now open for
nominations for the positions of Floor Leader and two Assistant Floor
Leaders.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: In order to maintain the independence and free choice of the
Commissioners, voting should not be done in the presence of the public. Let
the
voting be by secret balloting as when we vote for our public officials like the
President and the Vice-President. If we desire to have the voting by
acclamation, then we give every Member a chance to state his reasons for
his support to a particular nominee presented to the Commission.
So, I believe in an independent judgment, not that I feel that each Member
lacks the courage to stand up and vote for the ones whom he believes
should be
the Floor Leader and Assistant Floor Leaders. However, the choice should not
be influenced by any other consideration, except by his conscience, his
patriotism and his belief that the men he voted for are the best that he can
pick from this distinguished crowd.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Chair understand that we will suspend the session
for a caucus?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we resume the session to formalize the election of the
Floor Leader and the two Assistant Floor Leaders.
Is there any objection to the motion of Vice-President Padilla?
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: May I propose a modification to the motion. Why not do it here,
rather than spend time moving to the caucus room?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: I do not question the wisdom of the proposal of
Commissioner Padilla. I think it would be wiser and to the interest of all the
Members that
we elect the Floor Leader and his two Assistants only in our presence,
meaning without the benefit of public participation as we have here. Whether
we like
it or not some may be sensitive to defeat. So I think it would be more proper
for this distinguished body to conduct the election and all other related
matters in a caucus.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposal of Commissioner Bernas is to hold the election
in this hall instead of going to the caucus room in order to save time. There
are ballots here and election could be by secret balloting.
Is there any other comment?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President is recognized.
identifying those who are not interested in the office. I have a feeling that if
we ask the Members of the Commission to indicate whether they are
interested or not, those who will be valiant enough to want to hold the office
will be very few, so that will be equivalent to a nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we not consider the first balloting as a straw vote only
to indicate who will be the candidates, not as the final voting?
What does Commissioner Rodrigo say?
MR. RODRIGO: What is the objection to having nominations? That is the
ordinary normal procedure. Why should we depart from that? If it is
embarrassing to
have nominations, I think it is more embarrassing to ask those who are not
interested to run.
THE PRESIDENT: So, is Commissioner Rodrigo agreeable that we suspend the
session to have a caucus right here and then have the nominations during
the
caucus, excluding the public?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I have no objection to that.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I move for a vote on the motion of
Commissioner Padilla, as amended.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I will make a further amendment to the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Commissioner Padilla proposed that we reduce the number of
nominees and then elect from them. Whoever gets the highest number of
votes would
become the Floor Leader and then the next two, the Assistant Floor Leaders.
I would like to propose that we do not follow this but instead make separate
nominations for the Floor Leader and for the two Assistant Floor Leaders. It is
possible that some Members of the Commission would prefer to act as
Assistant Floor Leaders and not as a Floor Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that proposed amendment of Commissioner Gascon
acceptable to Vice-President Padilla?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I do not accept the amendment because the
precise purpose of my motion is to prevent formal nominations, and if we can
make
the nomination in caucus, that is all right with me. But I am trying to avoid
many nominations because we should expedite this.
THE PRESIDENT: So, may we have the Vice-Presidents motion now as
amended by Commissioner Bernas, because the motion of Commissioner
Gascon was not
accepted.
Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, in that case, I would like to make a second
motion that we hold nominations for the Floor Leader and then afterwards we
hold
nominations for the Assistant Floor Leaders and vote accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT: Also in caucus?
MR. GASCON: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: The idea is to conduct three votings instead of one because
there are three positions one Floor Leader and two Assistant Floor Leaders.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, that would mean there would be two
ballotings; one, for the Floor Leader and the second, for the two Assistant
Floor Leaders.
MR. PADILLA: Just to expedite matters, I accept that we will have two
ballotings.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion to suspend the session,
then go in caucus right here in this session hall, excluding the public, and to
vote for the Floor Leader?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, we do not even have to exclude the public
since the nominations would be in caucus.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no need. The session is suspended.
It was 5:25 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:06 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: I move for the election of the Floor Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, consonant with what was agreed upon in
the caucus of the Commission, I move that Commissioner Napoleon Rama be
deemed elected
unanimously as Floor Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
Commissioner Rama is declared elected as Floor Leader of the Commission.
(Applause)
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Also, consonant with what was agreed upon in the caucus, I
move that Commissioner Calderon be declared elected as Assistant Floor
Leader for
Luzon.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
Commissioner Calderon is declared elected as Assistant Floor Leader for
Luzon.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I interrupt the Gentleman on the floor.
Under the Rules, we do not distinguish the place to be represented by the
Assistant Floor Leaders whether they be from Luzon, Visayas or Mindanao.
So,
may I suggest that the nomination be for the Assistant Floor Leader only.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is well taken.
MR. RODRIGO: I modify my motion accordingly.
So, consonant with what was agreed upon in the caucus, I move that
Commissioners Jose Calderon and Domocao Alonto be declared elected as
Assistant Floor
Leaders.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none
Commissioners Calderon and Alonto are declared elected Assistant Floor
Leaders.
(Applause)
Is there any other business? The Floor Leaders should now take over.
Mr. Floor Leader, is there any other business? If there is none, we will have
the oath-taking.
At this juncture, the Honorable Napoleon G. Rama, Jose Calderon and Ahmad
Domocao Alonto ascended the rostrum.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 6:11 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:16 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Chair will now administer the oath to the Floor Leader and the Assistant
Floor Leaders.
OATH-TAKING OF THE FLOOR LEADER AND THE ASSISTANT FLOOR LEADERS
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentlemen please raise their right hand and repeat
after me, stating their name and the positions to which they have been
elected.
OATH OF OFFICE
I, _________________________ do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and
conscientiously fulfill my duties as ________________, preserve and defend the
fundamental law of the land, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and
consecrate myself to the service of the nation.
So help me God.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Floor Leader, is there any other business for the day?
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: We will, of course, be dutifully attending to our duties in our
respective committees but it will help if the Commission as a whole and the
individual Member can be kept abreast of what is going on in all the
committees. May I know if a provision has been made for the minutes of the
committee
meetings to be distributed as promptly as possible for the benefit of all the
Members of the Commission?
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Secretary-General say? The Chair believes
that it is very necessary that minutes of the sessions be taken. That is why
we have
a committee secretary. There are stenographers also who attend the
committee meetings.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I am referring to the distribution of these
minutes. Can we obtain a commitment from the Secretariat, unless it is too
much of
an imposition, that the minutes of all these meetings be circulated within 48
hours from the time that they took place?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, for the information and guidance of all the Members. Is
that right?
MR. OPLE: Yes, on a best-effort basis, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
working drafts the 1935, 1973 and the Malolos Constitutions. May I suggest
that the committee to which these resolutions on the Preamble have been
referred
decide on the exact proposed text of the Preamble and refer this to the
Commission for Second Reading, which would mean that there will be some
sponsorships, comments, objections, debates, etc., up to the period of
amendments so that we can show our people that we are trying to hasten
our work in
consonance with our time constraints. Perhaps, these matters, say, of the
Preamble, then afterwards the National Territory, the Declaration of Principles
and State Policies, can be successively discussed seeking the sentiment and
the opinions of all as to what changes we have decided to make, what word
to be
inserted or deleted in order to adopt the Preamble for the 1986 Constitution.
That is my suggestion, Madam President, which, if necessary, I will convert
into a motion.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman, Commissioner Rosales, is not here, but the
Vice-Chairman, Commissioner Tingson, is here. Maybe Commissioner Tingson
would
welcome the suggestion of Commissioner Padilla so that this can be taken up
in the meeting tomorrow, if there is one.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, that is a very well-taken suggestion
because, if I remember right, that was precisely what we did in the 1971
Constitutional
Convention. We began with this particular committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
R.C.C. NO. 7
Tuesday, June 10, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 3:20 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
Present
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
PRESCRIBE.
Introduced by Hon. Nolledo.
To the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.
Proposed Resolution No. 62, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT SERIOUS
ELECTION OFFENSES, AS DEFINED BY LAW, SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.
Introduced by Hon. Nolledo.
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Proposed Resolution No. 63, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROHIBIT SALE OR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC
LANDS TO ANY PERSON, WHETHER NATURAL OR JURIDICAL, AND TO PROVIDE
THAT SAID LANDS SHALL BE
AVAILABLE ONLY FOR LEASE OR CONCESSION.
Introduced by Hon. Nolledo.
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Proposed Resolution No. 64, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, OF THE
NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION AGAINST POLITICAL DYNASTIES.
Introduced by Hon. Nolledo.
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Proposed Resolution No. 65, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE NEW
CONSTITUTION A PROVISION THAT NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING
THE RIGHT OF PEACE-LOVING CITIZENS TO
BEAR ARMS.
which should now be referred to the newly created committees. For this
reason, I move that the following resolutions be transferred to the following
committees: Resolution No. 19, resolution on the role of farmers and workers,
from the Committee on General Provisions to the Committee on Social Justice
and Social Services.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Resolution No. 20, resolution to provide for authentic land
reform, from the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony to the
Committee
on Social Justice and Social Services.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Resolution No. 25, resolution limiting ownership of private
land holdings, from the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony
to the
Committee on Social Justice and Social Services.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. BENGZON: And Resolution No. 37, resolution proposing genuine and
broader land reform policies and for the incorporation in the new Constitution
of a
separate article on land reform, from the Committee on the National
Economy and Patrimony to the Committee on Social Justice and Social
Services.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none, the
motion is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Last Tuesday, our Vice-President, Honorable Ambrosio
Padilla, presented to Madam President draft proposals of the Philippine
Constitution
Association or PHILCONSA. This afternoon, I had the privilege of presenting to
the President, and through her, to the honorable Members of this
Commission
for possible use as reference material, a draft Constitution prepared by some
delegates of the 1971 Constitutional Convention who identify themselves as
the Reconvened 1971 Constitutional Convention. This draft Constitution is
accompanied by a transmittal letter signed by the following: Diosdado
Macapagal,
President; Abraham Sarmiento, Vice-President; Teofisto Guingona, Jr.,
Chairman, Sponsorship Council; Ramon Diaz, Chairman, Steering Council;
and Ceferino
B. Padua, Acting Chairman, Sponsorship Council.
With your permission, Madam President, I shall read two paragraphs of this
letter which consists of four pages, and I quote:
Please be informed that following the official lifting of martial law on January
17, 1981, a majority of the Delegates of the 1971 Convention reconvened on
March 31, 1981 in order to frame a new draft Constitution to replace the
original of the 1973 Constitution which was unratified and misused by the
dictatorial government of President Ferdinand E. Marcos. The 1971
Convention could reconvene because in its last session on November 29,
1972 the
Convention did not adjourn but merely recessed since it was necessary
before adjourning to wait if the proposed Constitution would be ratified in a
plebiscite. The Delegates who reconvened constituted a quorum after the
exclusion of the Delegates who had forfeited their membership by joining the
Marcos
government . . . It has been agreed by the Delegates of the Reconvened
1971 Convention that its new draft Constitution be submitted to your
Commission.
And now with your permission, Madam President, I shall present this draft
Constitution, together with copies of the transmittal letter, for the
consideration of the Commission.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the acceptance of this document
being presented by Commissioner Guingona? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the said
document is accepted, and the Secretary-General shall prepare copies of it
and distribute the same to the Members.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Assistant Floor Leader Calderon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Calderon is recognized.
the job. The overall effect is that there is not an even coverage of what
transpires in this Chamber. Thus, on any given day, one or two newspapers
would
have, more or less, a complete account of what happened here, but the
other papers would have very short and incomplete accounts. There is a
disadvantage
when the Con-Com reporter phones in his story rather late, meaning, very
near deadline time or after. By that time, practically all the other stories are
in and the editor has, more or less, decided how big a play-up and how much
space to give the stories already in his hands. This means that the Con-Com
story has to compete for whatever limited space there is left. It often
happens that it is relegated to the inside pages even if it is an important
enough
story. To help in the appreciation of the importance of stories and as a tool in
determining how much space to allocate to still unsubmitted but unexpected
stories, editors usually require their reporters in advance to phone-in what
stories they expect to submit even if details are not yet known. In this
respect, starting our sessions at 3:00 p.m. becomes a disadvantage for the
Con-Com reporter. He cannot phone in at 3:00 what stories he expects to
write.
He must listen to the speeches for an hour or so before he can determine the
shape of the story that is coming out of the session. Thus, by the time he is
ready to phone in, his advance tip to his editor is no longer an advance
tip. Often the Con- Com reporter must already write his story even while the
debates are still going on because he must catch his deadline.
I submit, Madam President, that all these inconveniences can be cured, that
we can make it easier for our media friends to perform their jobs, and on top
of it, enable our people to know completely what transpires in this Chamber
by the simple expedient of moving our plenary sessions in the morning. All
we
have to do is to reverse our current schedules hold sessions in the
morning and public hearings in the afternoon. By noontime, the Con-Com
reporters
would know exactly what their story for the day would be. They could write
their stories at leisure and they could inform the editors early enough just
what sort of story they have so that adequate space could be allocated for
the entire story.
Those of them who wish to cover the hearings in the afternoons can still do
so. But the point is, the major story for the day, which usually comes out of
the plenary session, will already have been formed. May I, therefore, request,
Madam President, that this suggestion from our media friends be
commended to
this body in order that the consensus may be arrived at and a decision made
regarding it.
Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:49 p. m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:56 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Floor Leader?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 72
(Adopting a Preamble to the Constitution)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we consider Committee Report No.
1 on Proposed Resolution No. 72 as reported out by the Committee on
Preamble,
National Territory, and Declaration of Principles. *
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 72 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary General will read the title and text of
the
proposed resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 72, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO ADOPT A PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION.
WHEREAS, it is essential to identify the power that shall ordain and
promulgate the constitution;
WHEREAS, it is necessary for any national constitution at the outset to
enunciate the great national purposes and aims for which reason it is
adopting a
constitution to establish a government;
WHEREAS, by reason of the intense religious nature of the Filipino people, it
is but fitting and proper that they should invoke Divine Providence, to utter
MR. RAMA: I ask that the Chairman of the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles, Commissioner Rosales, be
recognized.
MR. ROSALES: Madam President, it is the pleasure of this Representation to
inform this august body that after thorough and exhaustive study and
deliberation, our Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration
of Principles has finally approved the draft of the proposed Preamble of the
Constitution we are writing and which we are submitting for the approval of
this Chamber.
I am yielding the floor, with the permission of the Chair, to Commissioner
Tingson, who will sponsor the committee report.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, we apologize to our colleagues for the delay
of the draft of the proposed Preamble, but I think everyone has a copy now.
The
following are the members of the Committee on Preamble, National Territory,
and Declaration of Principles-seven all in all. We have Commissioner Rosales,
this Representation, Commissioner Villegas, Commissioner Aquino,
Commissioner Rosario Braid, Commissioner Nolledo and Commissioner
Quesada.
May I, Madam President, ask Commissioner Rosario Braid to read to us as
convincingly as she possibly could, with emotion, the proposed Preamble as
submitted by our Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, with the permission of the Gentleman on the
floor, may we request that the sponsoring committee or anyone of them
making the
sponsorship use the rostrum at the front.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid will please use the rostrum.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The proposed Preamble:
WE, THE SOVEREIGN FILIPINO PEOPLE, IMPLORING THE GUIDANCE OF DIVINE
PROVIDENCE, TO ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT THAT SHALL EMBODY OUR
IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS,
PROMOTE THE COMMON GOOD, CONSERVE AND ENHANCE OUR PATRIMONY,
AND SECURE TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY THE BLESSINGS OF
PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY UNDER A
RULE OF JUSTICE, PEACE, FREEDOM, AND EQUALITY, DO ORDAIN AND
PROMULGATE THIS CONSTITUTION.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you so much, Commissioner Rosario Braid.
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER TINGSON
MR. TINGSON: Esteemed colleagues of this Constitutional Commission:
Madam President, some 87 years ago, we were questing to establish a
government based upon our national ideals and aspirations as we perceived
them at that
time. We adopted a constitution for that purpose, as we did a few more
times, as the years rolled by, and everytime that we did so, there was always
a
in 1971 to 1973, it took us three weeks to hammer out this Preamble. But
this morning, instead of three weeks it took us three hours to be able to
produce
a proposed preamble.
We were not hasty about it or carelessly so, no. After all, we already had
prepared ourselves for this, some of us who participated in the 1971
Constitutional Convention. Therefore, I believe that after three hours this is a
product of something that is good and commendable for we believe that
prior prayerful preparation prevents poor performance.
And so this morning, Madam President, before we even started deliberation,
we started with a word of prayer because we believe that the preamble of a
constitution is the collective prayer of a people, aspiring to be free; aspiring
to be prosperous; and aspiring to live up to the prayerful expectations of
those who died in the night that we might live and live abundantly.
Therefore, Madam President, to the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles we are now referring the proposed
Resolution
No. 72, the resolution that we have worked on as our working draft.
Resolution No. 72, authored by this Commissioner, entitled: RESOLUTION
PROPOSING TO ADOPT A PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION, has been
considered by the
Committee and the same has the honor to report it back to the Constitutional
Commission of 1986, with a recommendation that the resolution be
approved, in
The phrase COMMON GOOD there would, of course, include such subjects
as the health of the people, which is the priority interest of those we refer to
as
doctors, also COMMON GOOD referring to education, employment, shelter,
economic needs and food. Those are the categories under the phrase
COMMON GOOD.
On the phrase PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY, the Committee did have in
mind the recent peaceful revolution, prayer power that generated the people
power. That
is all within the concept of participatory democracy.
Madam President, we are very pleased with this, and we hope and pray that
our colleagues would consider this very seriously, of course, as we always
want
to do to every provision of our proposed Constitution, but we commend this
to the approval of the body.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, will the Gentleman yield to a minor
amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
Will Commissioner Tingson yield?
MR. TINGSON: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: To me this is about the best Preamble I have read so far.
However, there is still something in my mind which I cannot forget that
there
have been a lot of lies and so much untruthfulness recently, that perhaps on
the second to the last line the word TRUTH should be inserted between
freedom and and equality. Hence, the line will read: We, the sovereign
Filipino people, imploring the guidance of Divine Providence, to establish a
government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the
common good, conserve and enhance our patrimony and secure to ourselves
and our
posterity the blessings of participatory democracy under a rule of justice,
peace, freedom, TRUTH and equality, do ordain and promulgate this
Constitution.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, the Committee appreciates these concerns,
but I was informed by the Floor Leader that there will be a time for
amendments
later on. Inasmuch as we feel that the Preamble is a prayer, and is something
that should have good style of phraseology, we could probably leave it to the
President to propose her own amendments or interpolate the Committee
members. Of course, we will be happy to answer and contribute. The period
of
amendments will come later.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am sorry; I thought we were already in the period of
amendments.
MR. TINGSON: Not yet, Commissioner de Castro.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, we are now in the period of interpellations.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Our committee simply obeyed the mandate of the leadership
of our Commission when we were asked yesterday to meet after we had
unanimously
agreed with the Vice-President, Commissioner Padilla, that we begin
deliberations in the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of
Principles. Inasmuch as we also felt that there ought to be goals and
purposes set before us so that those of us who have proposals on the
different
provisions of the Constitution could align our thinking with the goals and
general purposes set forth in the Preamble, we thought that this was the
right
procedure. I do remember that in 1971, that was exactly what we did we
began with the discussion on the Preamble, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I would concede to the requirements of
urgency; however, it is my humble submission that we cannot afford to wax
romantic on
lofty ideals and the motherhood concepts of democracy without being able
to feel the substance of what we speak about. My point is, we cannot
sacrifice in
the altar of expediency the matter of substance.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, in the drafting of the Preamble of our
original Constitution, the best minds, the best language, the best literature
were
availed of by the Members of the Convention that drafted it. The statement
of the Preamble should not only embrace all the expectations of the people
in
the general provisions that we are going to adopt, but a preamble should,
like a prayer, be inspiring. It must not only contain supplications to the
Almighty but also a general direction to the people and what they expect of
the government that is to be established. The phrases must be carefully
selected so that in the recitation and prayer of the Preamble, our children will
find it beautiful and inspiring.
I have only two comments on the original, as well as on the proposed
Preamble, as amended. The first is on the words: general welfare and
common good.
Practically, in concept, both embrace about the same purpose, the same
purview of what we implore Divine Providence to grant us. But of the two,
which
sounds more of a prayer or a supplication for Heaven to grant us, the
general welfare or the common good? I believe it is more beautiful to say
promote the general welfare because it embraces everything that the
government and the people are supplicating. Common good and general
welfare are
about the same. As I said, it was only in the phraseology that the Convention
differed: promote the common good or promote the general welfare.
Like a song, it could have the same meaning. Let our Preamble be not only
all-embracing but also beautiful when we recite and read it. I am referring to
the beauty of the words-the general welfare or the common good. I leave
it to my colleagues which of the two phrases, which mean the same and
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, with all due respect to the members of the
Committee on Preamble, I would like to request deferment of decision on the
resolution precisely because of the importance of the Preamble. It is a very
important part of the Constitution and I feel, just as in writing a book, that
we do not write the introduction until we know the substance, the main lines
of the story. So, too, in this Constitution. We have not undertaken the task
of public hearings yet. We have not undertaken the task of substantial
debate and the fair struggle of ideas in these halls and, therefore, I would
suggest
that we defer the resolution on such an important matter until after we have
known the main lines of ideas.
Secondly, I also want to remind ourselves that we have gone through nearly
two decades of dictatorial rule and foreign intervention. It is very important
that we try to reach one mind, one spirit as we draft this Preamble so that we
can truly understand the importance of why we are actually trying to zero in
and focus on freedom and popular democracy, on equality and social justice,
and on peace and national sovereignty. These are very important concepts
but I
think only after substantial debate and struggle of ideas, not just in these
halls but throughout the country, can we finally formulate the Preamble
which
this Constitution deserves.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I understand that the majority of political
scientists and legal minds maintain that the Preamble is not strictly a legal
after we know what we are going to draft, what we are going to formulate do
we go back to the introduction and give it that spirit, give it that beginning
that I think it deserves. I believe it is the same thing in the creation of this
Preamble. We could begin, as we had already started, on the form of
government, and that is the kind of discussion that could take place. The
Preamble does not have to be the very first thing that we have to work on.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the distinguished Commissioner yield to interpellations?
MR. GARCIA: Willingly.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before I ask the question, I understand that the term
Preamble is derived from the Latin term preambulare which means walking
before it. In
proceeding to the consideration of other proposals, there is nothing that
walks before us. Would the Commissioner agree with me if I say that in
approving the Preamble, we are setting out directions that should be
followed by us in the consideration of the various proposals submitted to the
Constitutional Commission?
MR. GARCIA: Exactly. Spanish poet Antonio Machado once said: Caminando
no hay camino sehace camino al andar. I agree that right now there is no
path that
is forged until we start walking, but that does not mean that a committee
can arrogate upon itself, or, in a sense, forge in one direction, stating the
entire vision until such time when serious discussion, debate, and plenty of
consultations have taken place.
MR. NOLLEDO: As between spirit and form, we are providing the spirit and
the form, the body itself will follow later on.
MR. GARCIA: I do not believe so. I think we must have the body and only
once the body is there, can we then give it form, spirit and flesh, and let it
walk.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I rise to reinforce the position of my colleague, Professor Garcia,
who took up the note that I raised earlier. And as a comment to the
position of Commissioner Nolledo, it is my position that the Preamble,
although not essentially a part of the Constitution, is, however, the
distillation
of the collective spirit of the people for whom and whereof it speaks. When
Commissioner Nolledo spoke of walking ahead, I feel, however, that we
cannot
walk ahead too far; we cannot afford to be vanguards without looking back.
Today, we have the most unique and the unedited opportunity to be in deep
consultations and conference with the people to determine how they feel and
what they feel. Let us not betray the hope and desire of the people to be
co-authors in this task. It is almost like our duty to listen to them before we
speak.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: In the spirit of a fair debate of ideas, I would like to withdraw my
motion on the condition that we hold a freewheeling discussion on the
Preamble, without any amendments nor any voting.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Garcia withdrawing his motion on that
condition?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, under the condition that we will have a freewheeling
discussion on the Preamble.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: This is just a reply: That is precisely what our Committee
wants to do, and we are happy that Commissioner Garcia withdrew his
motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I would like to ask Commissioner Tingson a few questions.
First, why did Commissioner Tingson use the words Divine Providence
which is simply repeating what has been used before? The phrase does not
sound
Filipino. We, Filipinos, often use Makapangyarihang Diyos which is a more
personal way of denoting God. Why do we not use Almighty God instead of
Divine Providence for easy translation?
The second question is: In the order or sequence of nouns on the last line
-justice, peace, freedom and equality-is there any reason for that particular
order or is it simply because we do not want to deviate from the order of the
former Constitution? I ask that question because it is commonly accepted in
Catholic circles today that there are four pillars of peace: truth, justice, love
and liberty. Peace is the consequence of all of these. It would seem
better to put all of those four ahead of peace peace being the result of all
of them. So, I would like to ask whether or not there is any particular
logic to this arrangement.
MR. TINGSON: First of all, the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles is conscious of the fact that we have the Committee
on Style which later on would work on this Preamble. However, we want to
include the generally accepted concepts in this proposed Preamble and then
give
them to the Committee on Style to put finesse to it.
Secondly, on the question about the phrase imploring the aid of Divine
Providence, may I ask Commissioner Nolledo, a member of the Committee,
to comment
on this by saying that we did not repeat the whole phrase. Instead of the
word aid, we decided to use the word guidance followed by the phrase
of
Divine Providence.
THE PRESIDENT.: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the purpose is purely for style. We have no
objection if we revert to the phrase the aid of. But I think it is more
emphatic if we use guidance, because we are manifesting some sort of
humility. We are subjecting ourselves to the guidance of Almighty God.
BISHOP BACANI: It is not so much on the word guidance but on the phrase
Divine Providence. I am wondering whether it is really the more
appropriate,
MR. GUINGONA: I notice that in this proposal, the Committee changed the
word liberty to FREEDOM. The word liberty is found in both the 1935 and
1973
Constitutions. I wish to advance the statement that I have no objection to
this, but I would like to know the reason for this change.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, since we decided at our Committee meeting
this morning that we share the participation among the Committee
members, may I ask
that Commissioner Nolledo be permitted to answer?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President. This change was suggested by
Commissioner Rosario Braid and her reason is that the term freedom is
broad enough
to cover freedom from want. Liberty could not possibly cover freedom from
want, so we used a broader term.
Thank you for the good question, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
Madam President, as I said earlier, I have no objection to the change. As a
matter of fact, there could be another reason for changing the word liberty
to FREEDOM. Although some say that the word liberty is broader, and,
therefore, would embrace the word freedom in its concept, in the
Websters
Dictionary the main definition of both is the same-a quality or state of being
free. The reason I favor the change is that this word liberty was copied
from the United States Constitution, and at the time the Constitution of the
United States was drafted, the word liberty was a very popular term as
assets are the ideals, the customs and the traditions of the race, as well as
the manpower supplied by the individual constituents of the Filipino nation.
I would like to find out from Commissioner Tingson which of the two
interpretations or concepts the Committee has adopted.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, Commissioner
Guingona will be happy to know that we have discussed with the Committee
on Human Resources that the word patrimony embraces precisely not only
natural
resources but also human resources, believing that life in this world consists
not only in the abundance of the things that man possesses, for man does
not
live by bread alone. So, we are happy to let Commissioner Guingona know
that that is precisely what we meant there. We did not want to put material
and
human resources because that would add more words to the Preamble.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you.
With respect to changing the word liberty to FREEDOM, if the intent is to
include the concept of freedom from want, I think, in addition to liberty, we
should add the desideratum of freedom from want. I think we should be very
explicit in this because for almost 90 years of constitution-making and
constitutional implementation in our country the plight of the masses has not
improved. This could be because the constitutions that we have had so far
did
not adequately and seriously stress the peoples need for freedom from
want. So, may I recommend to the Committee that we include freedom from
want in
addition to liberty.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, the Committee will be very happy to
receive, in written form, the suggestion of Commissioner Villacorta.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Alonto is recognized first; then followed by
Commissioner Suarez.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, will the distinguished Gentleman yield to
some clarificatory questions?
MR. TINGSON: Willingly, to the Honorable Alonto.
MR. ALONTO: In the first place, I would like to congratulate the Committee for
its beautiful proposal. However, I have one question for clarification. Does
not the sponsor believe that the phrase imploring the guidance of Divine
Providence, which is well taken, contradicts the first phrase sovereign
Filipino people? I ask so because sovereign people do not ask the
guidance of anybody. But if we recognize that the guidance of God Almighty
or the
Divine Providence is needed by us as a people, then we have to admit that
the word sovereign which defines the characteristic of the Filipino people,
does not exactly lie in our hands but in the hands of the Divine Providence
from which we seek guidance.
REV. RIGOS: May I comment on that, Madam President?
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, may I yield the floor to Commissioner Rigos,
who is a noted Minister of the Gospel and a theologian.
MR. TINGSON: The Preamble of the 1935 Constitution does not necessarily
tell that we were under oppressive colonial rule. Unfortunately, we know that
we
were under colonial rule when the 1935 Constitution was written.
MR. SUAREZ: I am only referring to the 1935 Preamble appearing in the 1935
Constitution. Since it was practically an American-imposed charter, it was
then
amended in the 1973 Constitution in order to reflect the circumstances
obtaining during that time, so much so that the 1973 Constitution reflected
the
waves of turbulence that became prevalent in the early 1970 and that
induced the 1971 Constitutional Convention to introduce two other blessings
enjoyed by
the Filipino people the blessings of peace and equality. Is the sponsor
aware of that situation?
MR. TINGSON: Yes, that is true; thank you for that observation, Madam
President.
MR. SUAREZ: Does the sponsor also agree with me that the other major
change that was effected between the 1935 Preamble and the 1971
Preamble had reference
to the substitution of the word independence with democracy?
MR. TINGSON: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: In the 1935 Constitution we were still aspiring for
independence, but in the 1973 Constitution we supposedly already enjoyed
independence; that
is why we were enjoying the blessings of democracy. That was the one
reflected in the Preamble of the 1973 Constitution. Is that also correct?
MR. TINGSON: That is correct, MR. SUAREZ. We come now to Commissioner
Tingsons proposal retaining the words justice, peace, freedom and
equality. There
are suggestions here to include other phrases reflective of the sentiments of
our people. Would the Commissioner have any objection to that at the proper
time?
MR. TINGSON: The only trouble about adding more words is that our
Preamble might be so inordinately long that it will not jibe with the beauty of
this
document that we are trying to come up with. We believe, as we discussed
this morning, that those words would best describe the Filipino people.
At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Vice-President,
the Honorable Ambrosio B. Padilla.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let us not sacrifice substance for aesthetics especially in the Constitution.
But I agree with the sponsor that it is a matter of style, but without
prejudice to substance, of course. Is the sponsor in agreement with us that
we must make our Preamble warm and humanized since it deals with the
masses,
the common people?
MR. TINGSON: Hearing Commissioner Rosario Braid read the proposed
Preamble, I cannot make it any warmer than what it is. It would be nice if we
could all
agree and just approve this Preamble today. But, of course, I do not propose
that.
MR. SUAREZ: I ask that question because in the 1935 Constitution the
Preamble was expressed in the third person. It was coldly impersonal and
there was no
warmth in it. But in the 1973 Constitution we used the first person plural. We
used the pronoun We followed by the phrase the sovereign Filipino
people, making it more warm and human. Is that not what was supposed to
have been the motivation behind the amendment?
MR. TINGSON: Listening to Commissioner Suarez reminds me of what was
said on the floor of our 1971 Constitutional Convention of which he was an
honorable
member, and I appreciate his recalling of what we had decided then but
which is still valid for this proposal.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
My last question is: Should we not make the people closer to the
Constitution, particularly in the formulation of the Preamble?
MR. TINGSON: We believe that it should be so; that is why I personally insist
that the records in our Committee meetings should show that the Preamble
is
the collective prayer of the people. Nothing could make a man closer to God
and to his people than praying, because praying would not make a man tell a
lie. He is speaking not to man whom he could deceive but to God who looks
with an X-ray penetrating pair of eyes, and to his own heart.
MR. SUAREZ: So, may we get the assurance of the Committee that we
formulate the Preamble reflective of the highest ideals, aspirations, culture
and
tradition of our Filipino people?
MR. TINGSON: We give Commissioner Suarez the assurance, with the
cooperation and approval of this honorable body.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Tingson yield to a few interpellations?
MR. TINGSON: Willingly.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The Commissioner used the word enhance instead of
the word develop. To my understanding, when we say enhance, we mean
that we add
something more to something that already exists, for example, we enhance
ones beauty. She is already beautiful but we enhance or accentuate her
beauty. Is
that correct?
MR. TINGSON: The Commissioner has precisely expressed the sentiments of
the Committee
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, is it not better to retain the word develop, instead
of saying conserve and enhance our patrimony, for there is nothing to
enhance in our patrimony? We should only conserve our patrimony and
develop it, which means that we should discover this patrimony and utilize
its untapped
MR. TINGSON: At the appropriate time, we will be glad to consider that, Mr.
Vice-President.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: The amendment guidance will make a difference in what
we are asking from Divine Providence. Guidance is a good word, but others
may not
be convinced that they need guidance and they may disregard it. Could we
not use the original concept of the Constitution imploring the aid? Aid is
more appropriate because we are imploring help from Divine Providence. It is
stronger; it is positive; it does not limit the choice of what we are
imploring from Divine Providence. I think that is more positive and is more in
consonance with the religious belief of the people that one can supplicate
aid from Divine Providence. So, I suggest that instead of guidance,
substitute IMPLORING which is one simple word but makes a lot of difference,
Mr.
Vice-President.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President.
Will the Gentleman yield to just a few questions?
MR. TINGSON: Gladly, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. OPLE: The procedure so far has been analytical, which means the
proposed Preamble has been broken down into components which previous
speakers have
rather than merely to be precise. I do not agree that the Preamble is not an
integral part of the Constitution. Only by strictly legal standards can we say
that the Preamble is not an integral part of the Constitution in the sense that
it is not likely that it will be used as a controlling rule in the
development of jurisprudence that eventually adds up to a perpetually
growing dynamic Constitution. I do not want to disparage the role of a
preamble in a
constitution.
Mr. Vice-President, some reservations have already been expressed here on
the floor concerning participatory democracy. I confirm what has been
disclosed
that this phrase was first invented during a previous era in connection with
the principle of propagating participatory democracy at the barangay level.
But I see nothing wrong in building into the Preamble some concepts about,
let us say, people power in a manner that will not limit the beautiful time,
timeless world of democracy, in the sense that we are dealing here with
genera and species. I think most of us would prefer the generic name of
democracy.
The minute we modify it into participatory democracy, it becomes selflimiting; it becomes a species or a subspecies of the genus. Now, I said I
have no
objection to reflecting people power. I would go beyond that in the
Declaration of Principles. I trust Commissioner Tingson will agree with me
that the
right of a people to revolt should be written right there in the Declaration of
Principles as a warning to all future rulers who may abuse this
Constitution. If they depart from it, the people should rise in revolt and that
right must be enshrined in the Constitution. But I am not dealing with the
Preamble just to anticipate one of the resolutions to be filed later.
There is a sense in which the Committee was very preoccupied with the
stylistic changes in the hope of improving upon the original Preambles of the
1973
1935 and the 1899 Constitutions. And I suppose this is laudable because we
would like posterity to know that we put the stamp of our own perceptions
living
at this time on this watershed of a declaration, the Preamble of the
Constitution. But apart from certain changes of style, there is no manifest
difference
unless we take at face value the statements earlier made by Commissioner
Villegas that there is a real distinction between the general welfare and the
common good, or unless we take literally the statements of Commissioner
Rosario Braid to the effect that enhance as distinguished from develop is
an
improvement on the term develop. I think it can be an improvement in the
sense of style but it changes the substance of the original word develop
and
this has already been the subject of a previous intervention by Commissioner
de los Reyes. I think I will ask the Committee to review this very important
word enhance, if the sponsor agrees. In this high-technology era
enhancements are generally used in terms of computers. And what does it
mean? It means
regime . . .
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, may I raise a point of order?
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Vice-President, I am prefacing my question with some
preliminary statements.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: What is the point of order of Commissioner
Maambong?
MR. MAAMBONG: We are in a period of sponsorship, Mr. Vice-President, and
the rule states that during this period there can be no interpellation.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Vice-President, I am a member of the Committee and
interpellating the distinguished Member is-one way of explaining our stand,
one way of
explaining the report of the Committee. Instead of talking in defense of the
committee report, I am raising questions to clarify our stand.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I seek a ruling on the Gentlemans point of order, Mr.
Vice-President?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: What is the point of order of the Gentleman?
MR. MAAMBONG: The point of order, Mr. President, is that there can be no
interpellation during the period of sponsorship. May I now seek a ruling on
that
point of order, Mr. Vice-President?
RULING OF THE CHAIR
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Sometimes, our sponsor makes reference to other
members of the Committee to answer or clarify certain points. And I believe
that
Commissioner Nolledo is probably trying to clarify certain points that have
been raised by Commissioner Concepcion. On that point, we will allow
MR. SARMIENTO: Would Commissioner Tingson agree with me that the word
democracy was enshrined in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions?
MR. TINGSON: Yes.
MR. SARMIENTO: Would the Commissioner agree with me that a preamble
reflects to borrow the word of Commissioner Nolledo the vibrant and
alive
sentiments, yearnings, sufferings and tribulations of our people?
MR. TINGSON: It is beautifully said.
MR. SARMIENTO: Would it not be better if, instead of using the controversial
phrase participatory democracy, we use a vibrant, alive and
contemporaneous
phrase, the blessings of peoples power?
MR. TINGSON: Instead of participatory democracy.
MR. SARMIENTO: Participatory democracy is too restrictive and it reminds
us of a past era of darkness. Can we not say blessings of peoples power,
since it reflects the contemporaneous needs, yearnings and aspirations of
our people?
MR. TINGSON: We did not have in mind merely the political aspect of
participatory democracy; economic participation is needed too to make
freedom alive.
MR. SARMIENTO: But does not the Commissioner think that the phrase
peoples power is too embracing to cover economic participatory
democracy?
MR. TINGSON: Peoples power is more of a political connotation than
otherwise.
MR. TINGSON: To begin with, we did agree to use the word participatory
before democracy to accommodate the thinking of many of the
Commissioners here,
so that in a freewheeling discussion like what we are obviously enjoying now,
they will be able to express themselves. But the Committee will be very
happy
to eliminate that phrase later on if that is the sense of this Commission. We
are happy to be able to elicit participation from the membership, which
obviously we are succeeding this afternoon. We were thinking more of a
direct, simple and readily understood kind of a democracy by our people,
because the
majority of our people have never studied Political Science. And speaking of
participatory, they do not understand it. They also do not understand
habeas
corpus, and yet we write it in our Constitution. There has to be some kind of
a balance here. We are not writing a constitution so simple that it can be
mangled later on. We want a constitution that would encompass all the
segments of, say, democracy. But we agree with the Commissioner that we
would like to
have direct participation by our people as they yearn to do and as they
understand democracy to be.
MR. MAAMBONG: We may be talking in legal terms, but it seems to me that
the answer of Commissioner Tingson is that participatory democracy is
direct
democracy. I just want to clarify that because then we are changing the
whole nature of our governmental system because under the Declaration of
Principles
in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, we had a republican form of
government, which is understood to be indirect democracy. There is no such
thing as
direct democracy in our country. It only happened a long time ago during-the
Grecian era.
So, I would like to repeat my question: Did I hear the Commissioner correctly
when he said that participatory democracy, per the interpretation of the
Committee, refers to a direct form of democracy where people themselves
govern the functions of government?
MR. TINGSON: We thought we were trying to accommodate the thinking of
some of our fellow Commissioners here; but then, I would say that this
implies both
direct and indirect democracy.
MR. MAAMBONG: That brings us to another problem because in the framing
of the Constitution, we have to decide whether we are going to use direct
democracy
or representative democracy. We cannot have both. So, may I ask the
Commissioner to clarify his answer, because he said that participatory
democracy,
according to the Committee, refers to both direct and indirect democracy.
MR. TINGSON: To me, in my own thinking, when the barangay people meet to
consider proposals on how they could be relevant to the government, that is
direct
in part, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal; he
never said that all men are created equal. In other words, by nature, men are
created but they are of varying intelligence and ability. Would the Committee
consider that when we say equality, by nature people are created with
varying
intelligence and ability?
MR. TINGSON: Actually, I must confess that we did not discuss this at length.
We would be very happy to take note of the Commissioners remarks on this.
MR. MAAMBONG: But definitely, by common sense alone, when we use the
word equality in the Constitution, we really do not mean natural equality
considering that people have varying intelligence and ability. Is my
understanding correct?
MR. TINGSON: I agree with Commissioner Maambong.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, since we eliminate natural equality in the
interpretation of the word equality, I would suppose that the Committee
refers
to political equality. Would that be a more correct interpretation?
MR. TINGSON: Not only political equality but equality in economic
opportunities.
MR. MAAMBONG: Is that what they call equality in opportunity?
MR. TINGSON: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: That would be all.
Thank you very much.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you so much.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move for the adjournment of the session until
tomorrow at three oclock in the afternoon.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the session is adjourned until tomorrow at three oclock in the afternoon.
It was 6:43 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 8
Wednesday, June 11, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 3:12 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Florangel Rosario Braid.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Almighty God, may Thy Spirit guide us so that we may
truly understand the needs of our country. Sensitize us so that we may feel
the
pulse of our people, especially the poor and the disadvantaged. As we
celebrate Independence Day, we pray that our thoughts and actions will be
infused
with the spirit of our heroes who fought and fell in the night so that we would
be free. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present
Natividad
Present
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present *
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present *
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
MR. RAMA. In connection with the draft resolution or draft constitutions that
have been submitted to us, I ask that Assistant Floor Leader Calderon be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, ladies and gentlemen of this Commission:
I have been asked by my colleagues in the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
who are
also my colleagues here in this 1986 Constitutional Commission, to convey to
Commissioner Serafin Guingona our collective and personal gratitude for
having
officially presented to this body yesterday a revised draft of the 1973
Constitution from a committee of former Con-Con delegates. This committee,
together
with current Good Government Commissioner Ramon Diaz, Audit
Commissioner Teofisto Guingona and former President Diosdado Macapagal,
worked until 1985 to
reframe the 1973 Constitution to make it more reflective of our peoples
aspirations and removed from it the objectionable provisions believed to
have been
imposed by former President Marcos. In effect, this reframed Constitution
was the one originally framed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention minus
the
transitory provisions and other controversial provisions which Mr. Marcos
used in order to nullify the intent of that body. Commissioner Guingona
should be
admired and congratulated for seeing the merit of this work and for
advocating its use as our working draft even if he was not a member of the
1971
Constitutional Convention.
May I remind this body that among the framers of that original draft were
great Filipinos, living and dead, whose work in the Constitutional Convention
cut
across long years of service to the nation. I refer to people like former
Governor Miguel Cuaderno, Sr., former Senator Raul Manglapus, former
Secretary
Felixberto Serrano, former President Diosdado Macapagal, Mr. Ramon Diaz,
Dean Vicente G. Sinco, Dean Jose M. Aruego, Dr. Salvador Araneta, former
Senator
Juan Liwag, Dr. Sotero Laurel and others. These great men can still help us
and guide us if we use their product as one of our working drafts for our
deliberations. Also, this will shorten our working time.
The original draft of the 1973 Constitution, minus the so-called Marcos
provisions, was formulated after many months of discussions, debates and
public
hearings. If we go through the same process today, we will never finish our
work in three months time. But with the reframed 1973 Constitution as our
guide, together with the 1935 and 1899 Constitutions, we can save time by
simply reexamining those provisions which were already the quintessence of
months
of discussion and public hearings. In short, we can telescope the work of
months into weeks and, perhaps, even days.
So, Madam President, in behalf of the former delegates of the 1971
Constitutional Convention who are present, I wish to reiterate our thanks to
Commissioner Guingona. I move that the draft presented yesterday by
Commissioner Guingona be reproduced and made available to each of the
Members of this
body as one of their working drafts.
I thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Calderon presenting a motion that the draft
presented by Commissioner Guingona be reproduced and made available to
each
Member of this body?
MR. CALDERON: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General is directed to reproduce the said document and
furnish all the Members with copies of the same.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: The Ad Hoc Committee assigned to look into a possible
alternative site, like the Legislative Building or the PICC, for the
Constitutional
Commission, instead of this Batasang Pambansa is now ready to render its
report.
THE PRESIDENT: May we know who the chairman of the committee is?
better site than this Batasan Complex for the 1986 Constitutional
Commission.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: May I pose just one question: Is this for free or are we to pay
rental?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, these facilities and spaces have been idle and
have not been used for many months now. Section 9, paragraph 8 of
Proclamation
No. 9 which creates the Constitutional Commission says:
The Batasang Pambansa building and premises are hereby made available
for use of the Commission. All government entities, agencies and
instrumentalities
shall place at the disposal of the Commission such personnel, premises, and
furniture thereof as can, in their judgment, be spared without detriment to
the
public service, without cost, refund or additional pay.
Madam President, of course, under normal circumstances they charge rentals
but considering we are the Constitutional Commission created by
Proclamation No.
9 we need not pay any rental. As a matter of fact, it is just a matter of
negotiating with the Central Bank which owns the PICC.
MR RODRIGO: Madam President, so there is need for negotiation yet. Be sure
we do not pay any rental. Should we not wait until the negotiation with the
Central Bank is finalized so that we would be sure whether we pay rental or
not or if we do, how much because our appropriation is limited?
THE PRESIDENT: Another point the Chair would like to bring up is the
inconvenience and the high transportation cost that would entail the
personnel
involved in committee meetings most of whom are living near the Batasan
area.
MR. RAMA: At any rate, Madam President, as far as the cost is concerned,
actually we also pay for the power we consume here in the Batasang
Pambansa
Complex.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Commission finally acts on the report of the
Committee, I suggest that we consult the Secretariat first.
MR. RAMA: We have no objection, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Anyway, I understand that the Committee was given up to
Monday to finish its report. Could this consultation be made on Friday or
anytime
today?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President, we will make consultations with the
Secretariat.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Just one point of inquiry, Madam President.
Since Proclamation No. 9 specifically chose the Batasan Complex as the
primary venue for this Commission and provided for supplementary sites
that we may
use, will the committees moving to a new site not involve or necessitate an
amendment of Proclamation No. 9?
MR. RAMA: I do not think so, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May I answer that in this sense: I think Commissioner
Rodrigo could still remember one occasion when the President said that after
we will
have been fully constituted, we will be totally free to make whatever changes
we may want.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA. May I quote again Section 9, paragraph 8 of Proclamation No. 9:
. . . All government entities, agencies and instrumentalities
shall place at the disposal of the Commission such personnel, premises, and
furniture thereof as can, in their judgment, be spared without detriment to
the
public service, without cost, refund or additional pay.
Madam President, regarding the possible change of time of our sessions, we
have talked to some of the reporters and a great majority of them said that
the
three oclock session is quite all right for them because their papers are
morning dailies and they have adequate time to catch up with their
deadlines.
And with the transfer of the Constitutional Commission to PICC, there would
be no problem for them in commuting to their offices in Manila.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, honorable Floor Leader. So, we could take action
on the whole report by Monday?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, I simply would like to register an observation
regarding the Committees report.
I think in terms of process it is very important. I understand the basic reason
the Commissioners would want to transfer, but I believe that we are able to
do our work really because of the support staff, especially the Secretariat. To
be very fair, I think we have to consult them first before we take action
on the report. It is a major undertaking to transfer. I am sure they have
prepared months for this Commission, and I feel it is only fair that the
Secretariat be consulted.
MR. RAMA: It is also important, Madam President, that the public see and
hear us without too much cost for them. The Batasan Complex is very far
away, and
I think PICC, which is right there in Manila, is a site where public hearings
would be more accessible.
MR. GARCIA: Exactly, I understand that this is very important, but I feel this
session must be a collective effort between us and the support staff without
whom we cannot do our work. I feel that is very important in terms of
process.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Madam President.
For the record, it should be explicitly stated that the consideration and
reason for the intention to transfer the venue of the plenary sessions of this
Commission is not so much the convenience, the comfort and the security of
the Commissioners as it is really our commitment to maximum public
participation
in the deliberations of this Commission. The way it was presented by the
honorable Commissioner Rama and the way the soft sell or the hard sell on
the
promise of appointments and comfort may be an unflattering reflection of
the predisposition of the Commission when presented in media. It should be
explicitly stated for the record that the consideration is that we want to
maximize public participation in the deliberation of this Commission.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: I have stated that precisely. Accessibility to the public is very
important here.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I invite the attention of the honorable
Commissioners: this Commission has been provided by the Ministry of
General
Services, through the Administrator, Mr. Roberto San Andres, with a support
staff of 93 persons who are working with and for us subject to the
administrative supervision and control of our Secretary-General but are being
paid from the funds of the Ministry of General Services. So, perhaps, the
Committee could inquire as to whether or not we could receive the same
kind of support, if we transfer to another venue. The support that we are
getting
consists not only of maintenance and security but also of other support
activities, such as engineering, and so forth, which we get from the ministry
for
free in the sense that we do not pay the salaries of the personnel concerned.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 72
(Adopting a Preamble to the Constitution)
Continuation
words should form the Preamble to the Constitution we are writing. Our
talents are woefully inadequate. And how we all wish Jose Rizal, Apolinario
Mabini
and Claro M. Recto were here so that we could have a Preamble we could all
approve even without thinking. But we must think because these departed
great
men of Philippine letters cannot be present with us. While we are guided by
our past Constitutions, upon us, nevertheless, has fallen the burden of
distilling the words of our peoples ideals and aspirations at the present time.
But we may not go too far afield in our quest for formulas, neither are we
allowed to weigh in the balance our personal emotions. Our special interests
and unique experiences might not be given value as they are, but they
should
always be seen in the context of the whole country and the world and, more
important, from the wider perspective of history. After all, we are not a
unique
people and neither is our national experience unique. We share a common
bond with the rest of the people of the world and with history, more than our
special love for the Philippines would otherwise suggest. The path to national
self-respect and independence to freedom, equality and justice is well
beaten. More than to experiment, we are enjoined to exorcise some evils so
as to render a new Constitution, a tabula rasa, a clean slate of our most
sincere intentions. Our tasks, Madam President and colleagues, are clear in
their outlines. But may I say what I believe to be our deep concern that
the
Preamble of the new Constitution will once more confirm the constitutional
Trinity of God Almighty, the spirit of democracy and the Filipino people.
Our Committee submits to this august body that our proposed Preamble has
adequately met the criteria of good Preambles: namely, (1) substance
what are
the ideas which must correspond faithfully to the Filipino identity and goals;
(2) syntax how ideas are sequenced, must be consistent with the relation
and prioritization of the ideas, (3) lexica what words represent the ideas,
must convey the ideas as best as possible, must be immune from misleading
connotation, must minimize overlapping of meanings; (4) translation must
be translatable into Pilipino and other major dialects of our country, (5)
phonology how the composition sounds to the ear, must sound nice,
although this is subjective; and (6) length how long is the Preamble, must
be brief
and concise as much as possible.
To summarize, did we meet the good criteria of substance and legal
craftsmanship? Our answer, Madam President, is yes, we have met this
criterion
adequately well. The legal minds of this body kept on telling me personally
that in essence the Preamble of the Constitution is obiter dicta that legal
minds do not even go to the Preamble on which to base their legal decisions.
May I ask my colleagues, if indeed the Preamble is obiter dicta, why did they
insist on their own favorite proposals in this Preamble? Why not rather be
satisfied that their proposals found their way into the Declaration of
Principles or into the provision on social justice since they are not obiter dicta
anyway? We are here to just enunciate the Preamble in beautiful language
of poetry as Commissioner Ople did insinuate yesterday, and in simple words
as Commissioner Rodrigo did say yesterday. We are willing to obliterate or
delete the word participatory, for instance, if that is what the body wants.
What the Committee wanted to say is that we were asked by the Committee
leadership to start the ball rolling so that we could come up with a
Constitution before September 2. So, the Committee begs the body to give
way to this
advice: If the Members truly believe in their proposals, let us not lengthen
the wordings of the Preamble. Rather, let their proposals be in the other
portions of the Constitution, which, in the language of the wise legal minds
here, are not obiter dicta.
Madam President, for the information of my colleagues here, we prayed
before the Committee started its work and after it adjourned today. So, for
emphasis
then, may I be permitted to quote again the proposed Preamble prepared by
the Committee:
WE, THE SOVEREIGN FILIPINO PEOPLE, IMPLORING THE GUIDANCE OF DIVINE
PROVIDENCE, TO ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT THAT SHALL EMBODY OUR
IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS,
PROMOTE THE COMMON GOOD, CONSERVE AND ENHANCE OUR PATRIMONY
AND SECURE TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY THE BLESSINGS OF
PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY UNDER A RULE
OF JUSTICE, PEACE, FREEDOM AND EQUALITY, DO ORDAIN AND PROMULGATE
THIS CONSTITUTION.
Thank you, Madam President, and in behalf of the Committee, I am now
ready for interpellation.
MR. TINGSON: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, when the proposed Preamble was read
yesterday by Commissioner Rosario Braid and this afternoon by the sponsor,
the word
Filipino still appeared. On page 2 of the committee report, however, the
following is one of the proposed amendments: No. 1. On line 5, delete the
word
Filipino. Is the Committee now withdrawing this particular amendment?
MR. TINGSON: We are not withdrawing nor are we accepting really any
amendment. We will leave it to the floor, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. The Committee recommended the deletion of the word
Filipino.
MR. TINGSON: That is a typographical error, Madam President. We did not
delete the word Filipino.
MR. DAVIDE: So, the first recommended amendment on page 2 of the report
should not really be in the report, because the first proposed amendment is
to
delete on line 5 the word Filipino.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, may I repeat. The official draft of the
Committee includes the word Filipino.
MR. DAVIDE: I see. So, we will just disregard the first proposed amendment
by the Committee.
MR. TINGSON: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Another point: Has the Committee finally decided on what the
scope of participatory democracy should be? Should it mean direct
democracy?
MR. TINGSON: I think our Committee expressed the fact yesterday that it
would cover both direct and representative democracy.
MR. DAVIDE: If it would be both, what should the mechanics for its expression
in terms of the system of government be?
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I was told by legal minds here that the
Committee does not have any authority to answer questions like that; that
the
authority is the Committee on the Legislative or the Judiciary. We just want to
keep the ball rolling and approve the Preamble, a collective prayer of the
country.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. TINGSON: So, Madam President, I cannot answer that question. It should
be answered by other committees, although I yield the floor to a legal mind,
Commissioner Nolledo.
MR. TINGSON: The word Divine is not God himself. It is an attribute of God.
MR. DAVIDE: Does the word Providence mean God Himself?
MR. TINGSON: Yes. The phrase Divine Providence in that Preamble would
be God Almighty.
MR. DAVIDE: Is divinity part of God or the attribute of God? Do we need to
qualify Providence with Divine since Providence simply means God
Himself?
MR. TINGSON: We have to because Providence is also the name of a state
in the United States.
MR. DAVIDE: I see.
MR. TINGSON: So, it should be Divine Providence.
MR. DAVIDE: Does the Commissioner agree with me that Providence simply
means God Himself and God Himself is divine? So, would not the use of the
word
Divine be a superfluity?
MR. TINGSON: No. It would not. Another reason why we want to repeat that
phrase Divine Providence is that we also want a beautiful bridge from the
past
to the present and this was used in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.
MR. DAVIDE: But would the Commissioner not agree with me that if we make
reference to God, it is not a question of beautiful phraseology because God
Himself is already beautiful?
MR. TINGSON: Yes, but we also need to express to Him beautiful words
especially in prayer.
MR. DAVIDE: Instead of describing Him in beautiful words, can we not just
simply say Almighty?
MR. TINGSON: Yes, we can say Almighty God.
MR. DAVIDE: So, would the Commissioner accept a possible amendment
during the period of amendments to change Divine Providence to
Almighty God?
MR. TINGSON: The body would decide on that.
us
to close the discussions on the subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, it seems that the motion of Commissioner de
Castro has two parts. The first part asks for a termination of the freewheeling
discussion and the second part asks that we proceed to the period of
amendments. I, myself, support the idea of terminating the freewheeling
discussion
since we agreed yesterday that we would not yet go into the period of
amendments until we have discussed the rest of the Constitution. I,
therefore,
suggest that we terminate the freewheeling discussion and move to the
other business and lay aside the Preamble for a while.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner de Castro say?
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, if we approve the termination of the
freewheeling discussion and debate, the next move in our Rules is the period
of
amendments. However, SEC. 23 of our Rules provides:
. . . On the day set for the consideration of a resolution for Second Reading,
the same shall be read in full with the amendments proposed by the
Committee, if any, unless copies thereof have been distributed and such
reading is dispensed with. Thereafter, the resolution shall be subject to
debate
and pertinent motions.
SECTION 24 states:
. . . During the Second Reading of a resolution, a motion to close the debate
shall be in order after three speeches for and two against, or after only one
speech for has been delivered if none has been entered against it.
Madam President, these Rules are made so that we can meet the 90-day
period of our work. If we continue this freewheeling discussion on such words
like
participatory, develop and Divine Providence, I am afraid that when we
come to the meat of the Constitution, we shall never meet our deadlines.
I, therefore, move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate and
proceed to the period of amendments as stated in the Rules.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move for the election of Commissioner
Ponciano L. Bennagen to the Committee on Local Governments in lieu of
Commissioner
Jose C. Colayco.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Tingson be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: I had to be there at the back for a little while and I was caught
unaware regarding the motion that Commissioner Garcia presented a while
ago.
And when the Presiding Officer asked for any objection, I was on my way to
the rostrum that I did not have a chance to object to it. I would like to ask
for a reconsideration of that motion.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): There is a motion to reconsider the
approval of the motion of Commissioner Garcia.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
MR. GARCIA: I move that we defer consideration of the Preamble until after
substantive debate on other issues on the Constitution is made.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): We have reconsidered the approval of
that motion, so would Commissioner Tingson want to propound some
questions?
MR. TINGSON: If I am not mistaken, there is no other Business for the Day. If
we consider Commissioner Garcias motion and then we adjourn, we will be
wasting several hours of work here in our session. Besides, as a Committee,
we feel that we have a substantially good and acceptable basis of a working
Preamble that we could, in substance, approve. Perhaps, after the period of
amendments, we can finish the discussion of the proposed Preamble even
today.
And if we do, I think the reaction today from the public will be much better
than the reaction we initially got yesterday. We were criticized for quibbling
too much on some of the phrases and words in the Preamble. And I
understand that even if we approve portions of this Preamble, those who
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Chair wants to clarify the
situation. A motion to stop the debate has been approved.
MR. GARCIA: Exactly.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): And so we now go to the period of
amendments. That is the matter at issue.
Is there any objection to the motion that we now proceed to the period of
amendments?
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am constrained again to pose a parliamentary inquiry
because there seems to be a mix-up in the procedure here. As I mentioned a
while ago,
under the Rules, the next step after the period of sponsorship is not the
period of amendments but the period of consideration of the resolution for
Second
Reading. This makes a lot of difference. Commissioner de Castro seems to be
of the impression that the next period is the period of amendments, but I
would
maintain that we are still on the next step which is the consideration of the
resolution for Second Reading. I would like to read Section 23 of Rule VI:
On the day set for the consideration of a resolution for Second Reading, the
same shall be read in full with the amendments proposed by the Committee,
if
any, unless copies thereof had been distributed and such reading is
dispensed with. Thereafter the resolution shall be subject to debate and
pertinent
motions.
This debate, under Section 24, is the one mentioned by Commissioner de
Castro which is limited to three speeches for and two against. That is why I
am now
posing a parliamentary inquiry as to the exact parliamentary situation. Are
we going to the period of amendments or are we going to the correct
procedure,
which is the period of consideration of the resolution for Second Reading?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The regular procedure is that after the
period of debate, we go to the period of amendments. The rule read by
whole Constitution is finally translated, we will find that we will really have
difficulties. Secondly, Divine Providence is less personal than when we
speak of God or the Lord of History. That is why I would prefer that this be
changed to something else.
LORD OF HISTORY is a very appropriate term because we are undergoing a
historical process of liberation and, I might say, reconciliation towards full
peace. And in order to show that we are a people on the march, and that this
guidance is with us as we march along the way, the words LORD OF HISTORY
would
be more meaningful. The term Almighty God that I proposed earlier is
meaningful enough; I think, it is even more personal than Divine
Providence, but I
fully support Commissioner Tadeos concept and suggestion for that reason.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee feels that LORD OF
HISTORY would be, in a sense, limiting the concept of God because we,
Christians,
believe not only in the Lord of History, but especially in the Lord of Calvary,
both of which are joined together in the phrase Divine Providence. We
would rather stick to the phrase Divine Providence.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, the term Lord of History within the
Christian context precisely includes Calvary which is the center of the history
of salvation. So, if you are speaking from the Christian point of view, the
objections will be even less. The difficulty with the notion of Divine
Providence, even though it is a good notion in itself, is that it can speak of a
God who may not be as involved as the Lord of History would show Him to
be.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, translating the Preamble or the
Constitution does not need to be transliteral. It could be translation by idea.
So, if
it is awkward to translate Divine Providence in Pilipino, let us translate it
with the idea of God. So, we feel that Divine Providence could be more
adequate.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Chair suspends the session.
It was 5:15 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:16 p.m., the session was resumed.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee on Style could study and
decide on that because it could also be God Almighty instead of Almighty
God.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes, Commissioner Suarez.
MR. SUAREZ: I suppose Commissioner Tingson remembers the discussions
we had in the 1971 Constitutional Convention regarding the possible
employment of the
phrase Almighty God. One of the questions raised and which appeared to
have been validly accepted in the Convention was that the word God
already
encompasses the word Almighty. When you speak of God, He is
omnipresent, He is omniscient, He is almighty. So is that not a redundancy,
to use the phrase
Almighty God? In other words, let us confine the word God without an
antecedent description of Almighty since Almighty would be a
surplusage.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: The Committee certainly does not feel we have the monopoly
of truth, wisdom, and knowledge. So may we call on a theologian,
Commissioner
Rigos.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I believe it is not redundant to describe
God as Almighty. As a matter of fact, we call Him loving, righteous and we do
not consider the terms redundant. It is beautiful to describe God as Almighty.
Whether we call Him Almighty God or God Almighty is the same. So I suggest
that we support the phrase Almighty God or God Almighty.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee is very happy to accept
the amended statement: We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the
aid of
ALMIGHTY GOD.
MR. UKA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Uka is recognized.
MR. UKA: My friends and brothers in the belief in the Almighty God: I think if
we use the word Almighty God instead of the other appellations, there will
be no objections from the other sects because your brother Muslims, who
also believe in God, always say this before doing anything or before prayers:
All
praise is due to God, the Beneficient, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
Arabic: (Alhamdu lillah ir Rahman ir Rahim).
I would like to say, too, that the Muslims have many similar concepts of God,
the Father of all men. The Muslims believe that all men are but one single
nation that is a verse in the Holy Koran. There are several chapters in the
Bible, describing Jesus and His Mother, Sitti Mariam, or Mary. In fact, the
Ten Commandments are in the Holy Koran. Father Mercado has been
studying this.
Islam and Christianity are but two forms of one religion, and the latest
exponent of that divine message the Prophet Mohammad said. Verily, I
have not
brought a new religion. The religion that I preach is the same religion that
began from Adam, Noah, Moses and Jesus. He did not bring a new religion.
And so the word Almighty God would be nice. I have to say this because we
do not understand each other, although we are all brothers in faith. The
Lords
Prayer in the Holy Bible is practically the same as the Lords Prayer in the
Holy Koran. There is only one verse there that is not found in the Lords
Prayer of the Muslim: Al Fathiya.
With your indulgence anyway what is ten or five minutes among friends
may I repeat this since this is very short. The Christian Lords Prayer, found in
the Christian Bible, says, as Jesus said: When you pray, pray thou likewise:
Our Father, Who art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive
those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation but deliver
us from evil, for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever.
Amen.
Here is the Muslim Lords Prayer as found in the Al Fathiya, the first chapter
of the Holy Quran. I better translate it in English because you do not
understand Arabic.
In the name of God, the most merciful and compassionate. All praise is due
to God, the Lord of all the worlds. Thee do we worship and Thee we beseech
for
help.
Guide us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast
bestowed favors, not of those upon whom Thy anger has been brought down
nor of those that
go astray. Amen.
Where is the difference? It is seen that both ask for guidance. When I
delivered that in an ecumenical meeting, one friendly priest told me: Sir,
indeed
they are the same. However, I found one difference in our Lords Prayer in
the Christian faith. There is that phrase which says give us this day our daily
bread I have not heard it in your Lords Prayer in the Holy Quran. Why?
I say the daily bread is simply a sort of reference to Gods grace. Anyway, the
Muslims believe that God is so high and almighty, that we are not supposed
to ask for hot pan de sal. And that is the reason why most of the hot pan de
sals are found in the Christian areas because my Christian brothers pray for
it; the Muslims forget to ask for bread. (Laughter)
Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. (Applause) In the course
of our meetings, I will tell you more about our similarities, so I hope we
will use the term ALMIGHTY GOD.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, our Committee was wondering whether
our Muslim brothers from the South would accept the phrase ALMIGHTY GOD
when we
discussed this even this morning. We are very happy that our Muslim
brother, Commissioner Lugum Uka, has now placed upon the record that
they are also
accepting the phrase ALMIGHTY GOD.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Before the Commission now is the
proposed amendment to change Divine Providence to ALMIGHTY GOD.
MR. TINGSON: We have accepted that already, Mr. Presiding Officer. The
Committee will be glad to hear the next amendment, if there is any.
MR. JAMIR: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Our amendment consists of inserting the word HIGHEST between
the words our and ideals, appearing on line 9 of the draft.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I propose an anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: The anterior amendment will be on line 6 of the committee
report on Proposed Resolution No. 72.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): I thought we were using this (showing
a sheet of paper) with the two Preambles side by side.
MR. DAVIDE: Then it would be on line 8 of the comparative chart.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): No, I think number 8 in the chart
means the number of words, not the number of the line.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to propose the insertion of the following words
between the words to and establish: PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR
NATIONAL UNITY
AND IDENTITY AND.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the Committee say?
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are very careful about adding words.
As it is, we have already succeeded in subtracting three words from the
Preamble of the 1973 draft and we are very wary about adding more words
to this Preamble. I would rather that the body consider it.
MR. DAVIDE: We appreciate the concern of the Committee in maintaining a
very short Preamble. But the Preamble of the Federal Republic of West
Germany
contains 117 words, that of the Fifth French Republic contains 87 words. I do
not think we should really be guided by the number of words contained in
the
Preamble, but rather by its substance.
So, if the Committee will not accept the proposal, I would request that it be
submitted to the body. And the wording would lead to the insertion between
the word to and the word establish the following: PRESERVE AND
STRENGTHEN OUR NATIONAL UNITY AND IDENTITY AND.
VIVA VOCE
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any comment on the proposal
before we vote?
As many as are in favor of the amendment, say yea.
FEW MEMBERS: Yea.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are against, say nay.
SEVERAL MEMBERS: Nay.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The nays have it; the amendment is
lost.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I propose an anterior
amendment. I know the Committee will be wary of my amendment, it being
an addition to the
draft Preamble.
After the words in order to, I propose the addition of the words BUILD A
JUST AND HUMANE SOCIETY. I know that the concern of the Almighty God is
not only
the establishment of a government, but also the building of a just and
humane society.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the Gentleman yield?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Will the Gentleman please restate his
proposed amendment before we go into that.
MR. SARMIENTO: My proposed amendment is on the second line: in order to
BUILD A JUST AND HUMANE SOCIETY.
MR. SUAREZ: Would Commissioner Sarmiento transpose the words JUST AND
HUMANE to be attached to the word government. In other words, the
proposed
amendment would read: to establish a JUST AND HUMANE SOCIETY
government.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Suarez, with regrets, I cannot accept
because it is my personal belief that government is too restrictive, too
limited. When
we speak of a society, it is broader in scope; it is unlimited, unlike the use of
the word government.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is the body ready to vote on the
proposed amendment?
As many as are in favor of the amendment, say yea.
FEW MEMBERS: Yea.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are against, say nay.
SEVERAL MEMBERS: Nay.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The nays have it; the amendment is
lost.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: On the same line, third line, between the words conserve
and enhance, I propose to insert the word DEVELOP so that the phrase will
read:
conserve, DEVELOP and enhance our patrimony. The words conserve,
develop and enhance are three different things. While you conserve and
you
enhance, it is necessary that you develop something first before you can
enhance it.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the Committee say?
MR. TINGSON: The Committee would partly accept the amendment and that
is, to use the word DEVELOP and we would be ready to eliminate the word
enhance
because we feel that enhance would already be within the purview, the
meaning of the word develop. We would partly accept the amendment.
Does
Commissioner de Castro agree?
MR. DE CASTRO: I will agree. So we will leave conserve and DEVELOP.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Committee proposes to delete
the word enhance and in lieu thereof insert the word DEVELOP, so the
phrase will
read: conserve and DEVELOP our patrimony.
MR. TINGSON: That is right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to propose an amendment by restoring the words
of our nation.
MR. TINGSON: What line is the Commissioner referring to?
MR. DAVIDE: After the word develop what follows is the patrimony
because the Committee has recommended the deletion of the phrase of our
nation. I
want its restoration so that the phrase will read: the patrimony OF OUR
NATION.
MR. TINGSON: So that is between patrimony and the comma (,).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the Committee say?
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, we feel that our patrimony certainly
refers to the patrimony of our nation.
MR. DAVIDE: There was a distinction made yesterday on the scope of
patrimony of the nation and just patrimony. There was a brilliant
disquisition on
the distinction: the patrimony of the nation is all-inclusive, not only of natural
resources but also of heritage. And so, I propose the broader concept of
patrimony, patrimony of the nation.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: With the kindest indulgence of the proponent, I find no
fundamental difference between the expression the patrimony of our
nation and our
patrimony. So I beg to disagree with the contention that it is all-embracing.
On the other hand, when we say our patrimony, we are more emphatic and
possessive. We are jealous of our patrimony when you say our patrimony.
Amin iyan.
Thank you.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: May I suggest an amendment which reads this way:
and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of A BALANCED
SOCIAL ORDER
under a RULE of justice, peace, freedom, EQUITY AND DEMOCRATIC
PARTICIPATION. We do not want to use the word participatory. The notion
of a balanced
social order means that we try to redress the imbalances and reduce the
gaps and inequities, which imply the harmonization of all sectors. In lieu of
participatory democracy, I suggest A BALANCED SOCIAL ORDER; in lieu of
equality, EQUITY; and the inclusion of the phrase DEMOCRATIC
PARTICIPATION after
it.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The parliamentary situation is, there
is a pending proposed amendment by Commissioner de Castro to delete the
word
participatory. So, this proposal of Commissioner Rosario Braid would be in
the nature of an amendment to that amendment. What does Commissioner
de Castro
say?
MR. DE CASTRO: I do not accept the amendment to my amendment.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So, are we ready to vote on the
proposed amendment to delete the word participatory?
Those in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
Those against, raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 27 votes in favor and 4 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: I would like to make an amendment to the Preamble. Since we
have taken out the word participatory, I would like to place the adjective
POPULAR before democracy so as to differentiate it from elite democracy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So, the proposed amendment is on
the fifth line between the words of and democracy.
MR. GASCON: Between the words of and democracy, insert the word
POPULAR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So, it will read: blessings of POPULAR
democracy. What does the Committee say?
MR. TINGSON: The word democracy has been honored for so many
centuries and has been enshrined in the hearts of those who believe in it. It
is the real
meaning of democracy, and we feel that using an adjective before it might
not even improve its meaning. So, we would rather that the body decide on
it.
MR GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I believe that my amendment does not
diminish the honor placed on the word democracy. In fact, it enhances its
real
meaning. So many regimes in the past which should have been called
dictatorships claimed to be democratic, and there are regimes also which
seem to
practice democracy which is of the elite nature. As such, because of the
peoples power revolution and the learnings we have had since the martial
law
regime, I guess we must enshrine it in our Preamble by emphasizing that
such democracy is genuinely of the people. Therefore, I would like to push
through my amendment.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The proposed amendment is to insert
the word POPULAR between of and democracy on line 5, so that it will
read:
blessings of POPULAR democracy.
Those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)
Those against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
The results show 12 votes in favor and 21 against; the proposed amendment
is lost.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I propose that after the word democracy, insert the word
TRUTH and a comma (,) after it; transpose peace and freedom after
TRUTH and add
AND PROGRESS after freedom, so that this will read: the blessings of
democracy, TRUTH, peace, freedom AND PROGRESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So, is the Vice-President proposing to
delete also the words justice and equality?
MR. PADILLA. No; that phrase will follow after under a rule of LAW. That will
be my second amendment; under a rule of LAW, justice and EQUITY.
But, first, line 5 should read: and our posterity, the blessings of democracy,
TRUTH, peace, freedom AND PROGRESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Would the proponent want the
Chamber to consider that as one amendment instead of two?
MR. PADILLA: No, I would propose two separate amendments. So, the first is,
line 5 should read. and our posterity the blessings of democracy, TRUTH,
peace, freedom AND PROGRESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the Committee say?
MR. TINGSON: That sounds acceptable to me. However, would this not be
redundant in a sense, considering the amendment proposed by
Commissioner Sarmiento
which was accepted by this body?
MR. SARMIENTO. I think the inclusion of the words PROGRESS and
EQUITY will add redundancy to the inclusion of to build a just and humane
society. So,
I will object to the inclusion of the words PROGRESS and EQUITY.
MR. PADILLA: No, I did not mention equity; in fact, I propose to remove it.
We are talking of blessings in the plural, so the blessings should
include not only blessings of democracy, but TRUTH as suggested by
Commissioner de Castro and peace, freedom AND PROGRESS, as I
suggested.
The idea is we should enjoy the blessings of democracy, then TRUTH to avoid
a distortion of facts that misleads and confuses the people. There is no
problem regarding peace and freedom, and I would just add the words
AND PROGRESS because we are aiming not only at the enjoyment of a
democratic rule
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I agree with Vice-President Padilla to the insertion of the
concept truth, but I believe that progress is a result of the presence of
all these transcendental goals of peace, freedom and truth. So that instead
of the word progress or prosperity, I would prefer to put the concept of
COOPERATION or HARMONY, or some other word that approximates that
cultural tradition of the Filipino which is bayanihan, bayanicracy.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I comment on that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is suspended for a few
minutes.
It was 6:12 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:16 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is resumed.
MR . RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Tingson be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: I think we are at the end of the proposed amendments, so we
would be very happy indeed if we could read the entire Preamble as
amended by this
august body before we leave this hall.
The Committee would accept the proposal of the Vice-President, subject to
revision by the Committee on Style.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Will the Vice-President restate the
amendment?
There will be two amendments, or is the Gentleman consolidating the two
now?
MR. PADILLA: My proposed amendment on lines 5 to 8 would read: and our
posterity the blessings of democracy, TRUTH, peace, freedom AND
PROGRESS under a
rule of LAW, justice and EQUITY, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: I would like to inquire about the amendment to the
amendment proposed by Commissioner Rosario Braid, that instead of
progress, the word
HARMONY be used.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): During the recess, there was a
conversation on the matter.
MR. GASCON: So, is Commissioner Rosario Braid withdrawing the
amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes.
MR. PADILLA: I regret I cannot accept the amendment because while
harmony and cooperation are necessary, I think they are already
understood even in
the words truth and peace. What I was adding is the concept of
progress which is an ideal, an aspiration of the Filipino people.
These are the blessings that our people should enjoy democracy, truth,
peace, freedom and progress. These are the blessings, the effects, we might
say,
of good government and the cooperation of our people for more productivity
and the creation of more wealth.
With regard to the other portion, the former text said under a regime of,
which the Committee has changed to under a RULE of. So, I propose to add
LAW
and retain justice, then change the word equality to EQUITY.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will the Vice-President accept an amendment to his
amendment, such that instead of saying just simply: a regime of law, justice
and
equity, we say . . . law, justice, LOVE and equity.
I will explain the reason. I would really like to insert a very important factor in
the peoples revolution, and it is the element of pakikipagkapwa-tao
love. I was touched seeing and reading the report of how people acted in a
nonviolent way, and these are the words in one film that was actually taken:
Pilipino din naman kayo. And then, in saving one of the loyalists, one of
those who besieged Malacaang Palace said: Huwag ninyong sasaktan,
Pilipino
din naman siyang tulad natin. I think we should be aiming at the civilization
of love, because a rule simply of justice and law, and even of equity will
not be able to bring peace. At least, here I wish to bring the thought of the
popes who had insisted that a rule of justice alone is not sufficient to
bring about peace in the world. And so, I want to add the word LOVE even
though it may not be very legalistic to hear.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have no objection to the insertion of the
word LOVE, so that the line would read: under a rule of LAW, justice,
EQUITY and LOVE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the Committee say of the
amendment, as amended?
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may the Committee hear from
Commissioner Sarmiento?
MR. SARMIENTO: May I make an amendment to the amendment.
I suggest that we delete the word peace because the fruit of truth, freedom
and justice is peace.
I also propose the deletion of the word progress because, to me, progress
is included in the promotion of the common good, in the building of a just
and
humane society.
I also propose the deletion of the word equity because if there is law, there
is justice; so there is equity.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the proponent of the
amendment say?
MR. PADILLA: I do not accept the proposed amendments to my amendment.
in
the 1973 Constitution. And it is in that sense that I wish to support the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Gascon to the word EQUALITY to
be added to a
string of similarly noble words in this concluding clause of the Preamble of
the Constitution.
Thank you.
MR. BROCKA: May I be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes, Commissioner Brocka.
MR. BROCKA: This has nothing to do with the concept. I just want to make a
comment on the structure that is coming out now. As Commissioner Ople
said, it
is a string of noble words.
So, if we read the amendments to the amendments to the amendments, the
clause will be: a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, peace and
EQUALITY. It
sounds as though we are trying to put all the noble words there. And in the
words of Commissioner Ople, it does look like a string of noble words.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: The Committee would be glad to accept the addition of the
word EQUALITY.
MR. GASCON: I thank Commissioner Tingson.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes, Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: As I stated earlier, this is just a very minor point of
clarification. There was an approved amendment introduced by
Commissioner Sarmiento.
I did not get it very well, but was there a comma after the words humane
society?
MR. SARMIENTO: There is no comma, but a conjunction and followed by
establish a Government. . .
MR. MAAMBONG: So, it would read: to build a just and humane society.
Thank you, that clarifies everything.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Committee has accepted the
amendment to insert the word EQUALITY.
MR. TINGSON: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo). Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, it seems to me that the Preamble, as
amended, is now ready to be read.
MR. DAVIDE: One final amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes, Commissioner Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: In view of the deletion of the words in order, I propose that we
insert the word HEREBY before ordain to make it really very emphatic.
MR. TINGSON: We already eliminated the words in order.
MR. DAVIDE: Precisely, because of the elimination of those words, I would like
to insert HEREBY before ordain to make it more emphatic, so that it reads:
do HEREBY ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the Committee say?
MR. TINGSON: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection to the proposed
amendment to insert between the words do and ordain the word
HEREBY?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
If there are no more amendments, may I request the Committee Chairman to
read now the whole proposed Preamble, as amended.
MR. TINGSON: Gladly so, Mr. Presiding Officer. After two days of deliberations
by this Committee and the active participation of the Members of this august
body, the following is the proposed Preamble to our Charter:
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of ALMIGHTY GOD, TO
BUILD A JUST AND HUMANE SOCIETY AND to establish a Government that
shall embody
our ideals AND ASPIRATIONS, promote the COMMON GOOD, conserve and
DEVELOP our patrimony and secure to ourselves and our posterity the
blessings of
democracy under THE RULE OF LAW and a regime of TRUTH, justice,
freedom, LOVE, EQUALITY and peace do HEREBY ordain and promulgate this
Constitution.
(Applause)
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo) The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we close the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo) Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the period of amendments is closed.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 72
ON SECOND READING
(Adopting a Preamble to the Constitution)
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we approve the proposed
Preamble on Second Reading.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo) There is a move to approve Proposed
Resolution No. 72 on the proposed Preamble, as amended.
Those in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Two Members raised their hand.)
The results show 27 votes in favor and 2 against.
Proposed Resolution No. 72 on the proposed Preamble, as amended, is
approved on Second Reading. (Applause)
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we adjourn, there is a suggestion to
be made by Commissioner Gascon regarding the Independence Day
ceremonies
tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
R.C.C. NO. 9
Friday, June 13, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:30 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present
Tadeo
Present *
Gascon
Present *
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present *
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President, because under the Rules there has to be a
one-day notice after distribution of this resolution before it is taken up on
Third Reading. So we will have to postpone and defer the Third Reading of
said resolution proposing to adopt the Preamble of the Constitution.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion to postpone on Third
Reading Proposed Resolution No. 72? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is
approved.
The motion to adjourn until Monday at three oclock in the afternoon is also
approved in order that the body can assemble for a workshop and a caucus
on
public hearings and other issues.
It was 9:49 a. m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the Roll Call.
R.C.C. NO. 10
Monday, June 16, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 3:18 p.m., the, President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Jose D. Calderon.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. CALDERON: Almighty God: On this, the tenth day of the deliberations of
this Constitutional Commission, we beseech You once again to guide our
minds and
our hearts, so that the thoughts and the feelings that emanate from each of
us will be most sincere and noble, and reflect not only our individual personal
will but the will as well of the Filipino people, in whose behalf we seek to
fashion a fundamental law that will embody our collective ideals and
aspirations.
Enlighten us, Almighty God, open our eyes and minds so that we may see
and understand, if it is not possible to appreciate and accept, those ideas
and
proposals that may differ from our own. Let the light of reason shine on our
discussions and debates, so that we may exchange ideas, thoughts and
arguments
without heat and without passion but only with clarity and sincerity.
Teach each of us, O Lord, that we are here for a Good, higher than our own
personal beliefs; that we are here for a Purpose, higher than our personal
ambitions, that we are here for an End, higher than our personal destinies
because, we are all here for a Good, a Purpose and an End that encompass
the
collective beliefs, the collective ambitions and the collective destinies of the
Filipino people.
Grant us, O Lord, the wisdom to select from alternative proposals those that
will be right for and acceptable to our people. Grant us the courage to
espouse our beliefs with all the logic that talent can muster.
But, Almighty God, grant us also the grace to accept that some of our
proposals may not be acceptable to all; that the greater good of the greater
number
of people may require the adoption of proposals other than our own,
however well-intentioned, well-meaning and sincere these unchosen
proposed alternatives
may be.
Bless, O Lord, each and every Member of this Constitutional Commission.
Bless our officers. Bless President Aquino, whom You made Your instrument
for the
liberation of the Filipino people from the bonds of tyranny; who, in turn, in
behalf of the Filipino people has called this Constitutional Commission in
order that the Filipino nation may once again enshrine the national purpose
in a Charter that will safeguard their freedoms and their future.
Bless us, join us, be with us today, Almighty God. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present
Natividad
Present
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present *
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
Letter from Mr. Jorge C. Salonga of Angeles City, proposing the following:
preservation of the definition of the territory of the Philippines as found in
the 1935 Constitution; declaring command responsibility in the exercise of
government functions as a national policy; and that decisions of the Supreme
Court and the generally accepted principles of international law shall not
form part of the law of the land.
(Communication No. 14 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from the Council for the Welfare of Children signed by Dr. Fe del Mundo
and Judge Regina G. Ordoez-Benitez, transmitting proposals on principles
and policies protecting children and youth.
(Communication No. 15 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 2 on Proposed Resolution No. 123, prepared by the
Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE
XIV OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
OF THE NATION IN THE 1986
CONSTITUTION,
recommending that the same be approved, pending further consideration of
other proposed resolutions on the other provisions of Article XIV of the 1973
Constitution.
Sponsored by Hon. Villegas.
To the Steering Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Tingson be recognized to make a minor
correction on the proposed Preamble which will be ready for Third Reading.
MR. BROCKA: We have discussed this proposed Preamble for the last two
days. And I think some of us have been traumatized by the discussions that
went on,
wondering what words to use, whether it is Almighty God or Divine
Providence. We went on for two days and I personally felt very
uncomfortable with the
result. I just want to put on record my feelings about this proposed
resolution. Precisely because we have gone through the very unique
experience of a
peaceful revolution, I felt that we should have come up with something more
original. I felt that the proposed Preamble is just an addition or subtraction
of a word or two, and is basically the same Preamble embodied in the 1973
Constitution. When Commissioner Tingson said that the reaction of the public
was
very favorable, I had a different reaction. My friends called me up and other
people chided me that ours is the only Preamble that contains the word
love
and that there is really nothing new in it.
In other words, it sounds so noble with all those words like truth, justice,
freedom, love, equality, and peace. And I think if there were another word
that should have been included here, it should have been independent or
independence. I think we have been so overwhelmed with the peoples
revolution
that we get so awed by the word love. Not that I am not a Christian or I do
not believe in these religious terms, but I think we have been so
overwhelmed
with the peoples revolution that I feel pardon the language the word
love already sounds so icky to me, that we even talk about what is spiritual
or
what is prayerfully joyous. It is so hard to speak up on this because it would
sound as though we were against love. It is very hard to argue about the
word love, but in this particular case, I really find it terribly icky. I was
hoping that precisely because of the unique experience that we, as a people
and as a country, had undergone last February and these last so many years,
we could come up with something original, something more vibrant, more
dynamic
and not something prayerfully joyous, as some people would say. I am sorry
if I am not using the right language. When the amendment to insert love
was
put to a vote, I raised my hand, together with some other colleagues, against
it.
My point is: Could we not come up with something substantive, with all that
is essential, spiritual, physical, social, economic, political, and probably,
give this to a writer who could put it prayerfully so that it would sound
joyous, harmonious and glorious? I have nothing against the nobleness of the
wordings of the Preamble, but when we stop and think about it objectively,
the rhetorics and the way it is structured, I just find it icky. When we say:
And a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace, it seems
we are looking for some other noble word so that we could put everything in
it, and yet, we missed out the word independence. That we are an
independent nation is not in that particular Constitution,
I am just voicing out my opinion and I just want to say that the people I have
come in contact with are not in agreement with the proposed Preamble. They
felt that we should come up with something more original and less icky.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka can express his doubts or misgivings
during the explanation of his vote on Third Reading.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President, I am sorry, I do not know the parliamentary
procedure. If this Preamble is put to a vote, my comment would be my
explanation
to my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all right, Commissioner Brocka.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: I support the contention and even the lengthy explanation of
Commissioner Brocka on the word love. We must elevate and dignify not
only the
Constitution, but also its phraseology, especially the Preamble which will be
memorized by our children and grandchildren. We all believe in love. We are
a
peace-loving people, but the connotation of love varies and the ramification
and its interpretation may be as one sees it. So, in the Constitution, let us
elevate the Preamble to a dignified level so that every word carries weight,
connotation and strength. I do not mean that I do not possess love or that I
have no love towards my fellowmen. What I mean is, let us elevate the
Constitution and place in it only words that carry dignity and strength,
something
which we can recite without anyone interpreting every word in the
Constitution. So, let us dignify the Preamble, whether in the American
Constitution or in
our Constitution, that carries this word love.
I agree with Commissioner Brocka that if we exclude the word love, the
Preamble would be more lofty, more serious and more dignified and one
which we and
our children could recite and memorize without any injury to other people.
THE PRESIDENT: We now proceed to the voting on Third Reading.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
MR. ABUBAKAR: May I have the floor first? Could this suggestion not be
referred to the body for a reconsideration?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 4:01 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:09 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, dear colleagues, I am dropping my
suggestion for a reconsideration.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The body, therefore, can now proceed to vote on Third
Reading. As stated earlier, any manifestation can be made to explain your
affirmative
or negative vote or your abstention.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
I was personally surprised to read a copy of proposed Resolution No. 72
calling for a voting on Third Reading. I was made to understand that we are
going
to rule with definiteness on the constitutional provisions regarding the
Preamble portion after we shall have read the sentiments of the people as
reflected in the public hearings scheduled to be conducted all over the
country.
Madam President, I was under the impression please correct me if I am
wrong that the final voting on Third Reading of the Preamble would be
scheduled
only after we shall have received pertinent feedbacks from our people during
our dialogue with them. I have heard the exposition eloquently made by
Commissioner Brocka, and I share his sentiments regarding a certain degree
of dissonance in the way the Preamble of our Constitution has been
formulated.
Be that as it may, we would like to raise a parliamentary situation. We
respectfully move to defer the voting on Third Reading of this Preamble until
after
we shall have made our consultations with the people.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Just for the record, the Chair would like to be clarified on the
Commissioners statement that there has been a commitment on the part of
the body or of the Chair to postpone the Third Reading on the Preamble.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, I did not say there was a commitment but I
was under that impression I made that very clear.
THE PRESIDENT: We can refer to the transcript of the proceedings.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, the transcript will not yield the fact that
immediately after the Second Reading we can move on to the Third Reading;
I hope
the records will bear me out in this regard. In other words, Madam President,
the voting on Third Reading could very well be deferred without violating
whatever understanding may have been reached among the Commissioners
in connection with the final approval of the Preamble.
So at this juncture, Madam President, we are respectfully submitting a formal
motion to defer final voting on Third Reading on the Preamble. After all, in
principle, the Preamble has already been voted upon on Second Reading by a
vote of 27 against two; so it stands as having been approved. My only fear,
Madam President, is that there could be dramatic changes which might
change the minds of the Commissioners in the final voting.
afternoon is not even sanctioned by our Rules, because we were not given
that
reasonable opportunity to analyze the provision that is sought to be voted
upon this afternoon because of the one-day, but not more than three-day
requirement.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: If we go back to the records, Commissioner Garcia had
moved for the deferment of the final voting on the Preamble because he
would like to
hold public hearings on this. Commissioner Garcias motion was put to a vote
if I remember right-and it was put down by the body.
If we were to defer the Third Reading on the Preamble and wait for the public
hearings to be conducted, but there would be further amendments or
changes,
should we go back to the period of amendments which we have already
terminated in accordance with our Rules?
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other comments on this? The motion to defer
will be put to a vote . . .
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, even if we approve the Preamble on Third
Reading, I personally believe that we can still change the wordings in the
Committee
on Style, precisely because the Preamble is not technically part of the
Constitution. If the Preamble should conflict with the substantive portions
which
we will have agreed upon later on, we will have to change the wordings in
the Committee on Style.
Therefore, if during the public hearings we will encounter certain responses
of the people to make changes in the Preamble, I think we will still be free
to do it in the Committee on Style.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, considering that the motion is to defer final
voting on the Preamble until July 7, then, clearly this is in violation of
Section 28 of the Rules which states:
No such resolution shall be voted on Third Reading unless mimeographed
copies thereof shall have been distributed to the Members of the
Constitutional
Commission at least one day but not more than three calendar days before
final action thereon is taken.
So, unless we suspend that Rule, I do not think it is in order for us to vote on
the motion.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session.
It was 4:20 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:25 p. m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: May we respectfully request that the final voting on the
Preamble be deferred until tomorrow. That is an amendment to my motion
for deferment
of its consideration to July 7 because after going over the Rules with
Commissioner Rodrigo, we were convinced that he is correct in his reading of
that
particular provision. So, may we formally move that the final or Third
Reading and final voting on the Preamble be deferred until tomorrow.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Before we act on the motion, may we know exactly the reason it is
being deferred for tomorrow because we were given the reason for the
original
motion to postpone until July. In other words, this is insufficient until we can
add to it the grace of public hearings until July. But why defer until
tomorrow? We have not been given the reason yet. It is a good habit
generally to understand what we are voting upon.
MR. SUAREZ: I originally moved for the deferment of the voting on Third
Reading of this Preamble to July 7, but when my attention was called by
Commissioner Rodrigo to the provisions of Section 28 of our Rules, I
acknowledged the fact that my motion could be violative of our Rules. On the
other
hand, we also feel that we need a little more time to consider this Preamble
as proposed to be voted upon by the Committee on Preamble.
MR. OPLE: If the reason is so we can sleep over it, I would like to support the
motion of Commissioner Suarez.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion to defer the voting on
Third Reading of Resolution No. 72 for tomorrow in order for the Members to
prepare for whatever vote they may want to cast on this particular resolution
and also to prepare the explanation of their votes which will be in order?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, some of the drafts submitted by the
various entities UP Law Center, PHILCONSA, etc. were referred to the
Steering
Committee. Technically, the Steering Committee would have to endorse
these and break them up into various sections to be referred to the proper
committees.
To save time, I would like to propose an omnibus motion to be approved by
this body to the effect that the various drafts proposed by the various
entities
such as UP, PHILCONSA and the others, be automatically referred from the
Steering Committee to the various committees so that the Steering
Committee will
just write an interoffice memo to these committees. That is the motion,
Madam President. So, I will not be coming to the plenary hall every time
there is
such a situation.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I be allowed to make a comment on the motion before it is
voted upon?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: Under the Rules, the Steering Committee has, among others,
the duty to coordinate with the other organic committees. Would the motion,
therefore, be necessary when it is within its jurisdiction to coordinate with
the other committees, to refer, through the exercise of its own functions,
these drafts to the different committees with proper instructions without the
necessity of consent of the Commission?
MR. BENGZON: If that is the ruling of the Chair, then there is no need for the
motion.
VIVA VOCE
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that it would be more in accordance with
our Rules if the motion of the Chairman of the Steering Committee be acted
upon
here in plenary session so as to avoid any regrets or difficulties about it. So,
the motion is in order and the motion will be acted upon and submitted to
a vote.
As many as are in favor of the motion of the Chairman of the Steering
Committee, please say yea.
SEVERAL MEMBERS: Yea.
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are against, please say nay. (Silence)
The yeas have it; the motion is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I be recognized again?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON. The Steering Committee has noticed that there have been a
lot of overlapping committee meetings so that a lot of the Commissioners are
unable
to attend the committee meetings that they wish to attend. So, I would like
to move: First, that the daily plenary sessions be limited to half an hour to
one hour, just to dispose of the Reference of Business after which the plenary
session shall be suspended and the rest of the afternoon be devoted to
committee or public hearings. Second, apropos of this, the whole
Commission would go into a caucus so that the Steering Committee, upon
the suggestion of
Commissioner Monsod, could discuss a formula which, if implemented, would
result in a minimum of overlapping of committee meetings.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I make some suggestions apropos of the
difficulty we had with respect to approval on Third Reading because I
anticipate
this to come up again and again. I think the various committees are
beginning to submit their committee reports little by little, and as soon as
these
committee reports are submitted, they will be calendared for discussion and
we will be having plenary sessions. And yet, we do have a commitment to
hold
public hearings and it would seem to me that we should honor this
commitment of holding public hearings. We should make it possible for us to
honor this
commitment to hold public hearings before we discuss all the reports. So, I
recommend the consideration of the possibility of suspending our plenary
sessions and devoting a whole week just to public hearings instead of waiting
for the weekends. Let us farm out during the week and get as many public
hearings out of the way as possible so that when we do consider the
committee reports, we can say that we considered the committee reports
against the
background of what we heard from the people. Otherwise, we will again run
the risk of approving something before any public hearing is held as we did
with
the report on the Preamble.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we appreciate the observations of
Commissioner Bernas. However, organizing 45 provincial public hearings is
not an easy task
and the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Hearings, therefore, wanted a lot of
lead time in order to make these consultations really meaningful. That is why
the
first official public hearings in the provinces will be on the 28th and on two
other consecutive Saturdays after that. I think if the intent is to
facilitate the hearings so that we can get on with the plenary sessions, there
will be a very big logistical problem since we will not be able to hold
those hearings in one week. That is why we have proposed that they should
be held on weekends. However, we do have a proposal which, we hope, will
be taken
up in the caucus that the plenary sessions be only for purposes of First
Reading and that all of the work for the next three weeks be committee
work,
either in discussions or in interviewing or talking to resource persons. In that
way we can do all the preparatory work in the committee plus the public
hearings on weekends so that we can adhere to our schedule of July 7 for
submission of committee reports.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I have no problem with that, but I think this
will involve an amendment of our Rules. We have to amend the Rules to
make it
possible for us to slow down the consideration of committee reports.
MR. ROMULO: May I say something about that, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: That is why, apropos of the comment of Commissioner Bernas,
the intention of the Rules Committee was really not to submit individual
resolutions approved by the committee but for the committee to submit a
complete report on July 7. Thus, that will permit us to go ahead with the
public
hearings. We should also mention that each standing committee is starting
to have public hearings throughout this period plus the outreach program of
weekend public hearings. It is our belief that, if we stick to that schedule and
we submit complete committee reports on July 7, we will be able to meet
the timetable.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, Commissioner Romulo, does the Chair
understand that after July 7, these committee reports will be in order for
debates and
interpellations?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President, that is the intention of our timetable,
but whether we can meet it or not is another question.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
MR. OPLE: If that is a motion, I would like to second it, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Is there any objection?
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I have no objection, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of Commissioner
Sumulong? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I now reiterate my motion?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: First is that henceforth, beginning tomorrow, we shall limit
our plenary session to, say, between half an hour to one hour just for the
purpose of going through the First Reading of the various resolutions and
their referral to various committees in order to comply with our Rules. And,
second, that we go into a caucus in order to be able to discuss the formula to
avoid or at least minimize the overlapping of committee meetings.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: I would like to ask a few questions, if I may. Would that imply,
therefore, that committee reports for Second Reading be done or dispensed
with
after July 7 or beginning July 7 after the committees will have submitted their
final reports?
MR. BENGZON: The calendaring of committee reports will be after July 7. But,
of course, after a public hearing, if a committee finishes its reports before
July 7, please submit them to the Secretariat and Steering Committee so that
as we receive the reports, we can decide which ones to calendar first. On the
debates on Second Reading, submission of these committee reports will have
to be after July 7.
MR. GASCON: I would like to second the motion then.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, there are two subjects in the motion. First, whether
or not we shall approve that the sessions be held only for half an hour or an
hour.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, for half an hour to an hour just for the purpose of
complying with the Rules on First Reading, referring the proposed resolutions
to the
respective committees.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we act on that first motion?
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Do I understand that in the light of the motion approved a few
minutes ago, the exception, at least in the case of tomorrow, is the action of
this Commission on the vote on Third Reading on the proposed Preamble?
MR. BENGZON: Yes, and the continuation of the proposal. Madam President,
instead of starting the session at three oclock, we start it at two oclock so
that we will have more time for committee meetings.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I would like to propose an amendment to
the motion; that is, to add UNLESS THE PRESIDENT DEEMS IT WISE TO
PROLONG THE
SESSION, because there may be exceptional cases when we might have to
prolong the session.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, that is accepted.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that amendment acceptable?
MR. BENGZON: Accepted, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Vice-President Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I have no objection to what has been said
about public hearings which should be considered by the different
committees so
that we can consult with and appraise the sentiments of our people. But in
this motion, from June 16, today, up to July 7, the session hall will just be a
formality in having the many resolutions calendared for First Reading. After
that, it is intended to have the Assembly adjourned.
Madam President, considering the time constraints and considering that the
people also want to hear our views it is very good for us to hear the views
of
the people but the people also, I think, expect to hear our views because we
have been appointed or designated as Commissioners to draft a Constitution
I
feel that as we have had a freewheeling discussion on Article I, the Preamble,
we should, for example, this afternoon or tomorrow, continue the
freewheeling discussion on Article II and perhaps on Article III so that the
different Commissioners may express their views on these usual and
necessary
portions of the Constitution. Otherwise, the people might say, Well, from
June 2 to June 16, you have passed on Second Reading only the Preamble.
Then on
June 16 up to July 7, you have not done anything in the session hall, and the
Commissioners have not expressed their views on the different Articles that
follow the Preamble.
So, I am not in favor, Madam President, of making this Assembly, from June
16 to July 7, a mere formal Assembly where we will just listen to so many
resolutions that are being calendared on First Reading.
I humbly submit that we should express our views without disregarding the
views of the people on all these different Articles that follow because, while
we
must listen to the people, I think the people want to listen to us. And the
more important thing is that we crystallize some views on these essential
parts
of the Constitution.
So, I am objecting to the motion to make the Assembly meetings only a
formality to hear the various resolutions filed. There are so many of them;
some are
repetitious; some are redundant; some are unnecessary.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: I respectfully submit.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I would like to call for a vote now. But before I do, may I just
state that the points raised by Commissioner Padilla could be achieved when
the body discusses the resolutions on Second Reading, when the committee
reports are reported out and the people can hear our respective views on
these
matters. May I now call for a vote on the motion, Madam President?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 4:51 p. m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:55 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I would like to withdraw in original motion and substitute it
with a motion that we adjourn now and that the committee chairmen then go
into a
caucus to discuss precisely: (1) the matters that were raised in my original
motion and the comments of Commissioner Padilla; (2) the formula to avoid
or,
at least, minimize the overlapping of committee meetings; and (3) such
other matters as may still come up during the caucus. Thereafter, tomorrow,
during
the plenary session, the results of this caucus will be reported to the body at
two or three oclock.
What is the pleasure of the Chair?
THE PRESIDENT: Let us have it first at three oclock.
MR. BENGZON: All right.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection now to the motion that we adjourn
and go into a caucus?
The caucus will include the Vice-Chairmen, if they desire to attend and any
Member would be welcome also but essentially the Chairmen and the
Vice-Chairmen.
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Excuse me, Madam President, but maybe it should be a
caucus of everybody because there are some matters we want to raise on
the public hearings
in which we need the attendance of all the Commissioners.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that for this afternoon?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: How about that?
MR. BENGZON: Accepted, Madam President.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: So, the motion is to adjourn and to go into a caucus for all
the Members of the Commission to thresh out all these problems that have
been
presented before us by Commissioner Bengzon, Vice-President Padilla and
the others.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Where is the venue, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: It is in the South Caucus Room.
The session is adjourned until tomorrow at three oclock in the afternoon.
It was 5:58 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the Roll Call.
R.C.C. NO. 11
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Present
Present
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Brocka
Calderon
Castro de
Colayco
Concepcion
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
prcd
approached me at my desk and asked if it was true that there was such an
offer of $20 million for research by the United States. I told her, Do not
believe that, because if the United States will spend one cent of their money,
it must have some strings attached to it. And then she asked me, What will
you do about this information? I said in a blunt manner that if the man who
made the offer would see me, I would throw him out.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that sufficient discussion has been made
on this particular subject, and, therefore, the Chair closes this particular
issue.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: I move that we proceed with the voting of Resolution No. 72
on Third Reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, may I request that Commissioner Brocka
be given the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you very much, Madam President
I would like to move for a reconsideration of the approval on Second Reading
of the proposed Preamble of the Constitution. I know that this is adding to
the delay, but I would like to move for reconsideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anybody seconding the motion?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President. may I comment on that.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Section 42 of our Rules provides, and I quote:
When a motion, report or resolution is adopted or lost, it shall be in order for
a Member who voted with the majority to move for the reconsideration
thereof on the same or succeeding session day.
We voted on Resolution No. 72 on Second Reading last Friday and the
succeeding session day was yesterday; so it is too late now. It could be a
violation of this Rule. But may I suggest this: The only thing that our
.........
.........
Aquino
.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bernas
Rosario Braid
Brocka
...........
...........
...........
There are certain points to consider. I think the word ordained in the
original, except in the context of Holy Order, sounds rather archaic. Adopt
or enact is the more modern term. What happened to common good,
equality and freedom in the original? These are, I think, included in the
concept of democracy. What about conserve and develop our patrimony?
These are included in the more all-encompassing concept of independence
or national independence which would enshrine the principle of
nationalism, the peoples nationalist aspirations, in the Preamble.
I know that the formulation of this Preamble has caused much delay, but
precisely because the Preamble appears right at the very beginning and is so
important, we should not sacrifice the substance and originality of this
Preamble to speed up or to hasten its promulgation.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Calderon
...........
Yes
...........
Yes
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Yes
Yes
...........
...........
Yes
Jamir
...........
Laurel
...........
Yes
Maambong
...........
...........
MR. MONSOD: I vote yes. However, I want to make two observations: One is
that I agree that the events of February should find some expression in the
Preamble.
However, I also would like to caution ourselves against focusing too much on
the four days of February. After all, one may look at it as an end game, that
what has been happening through all the years, through all the struggles
that many people had gone through, are all part of that process. I would like
to think that the people who deserve more commendation are those who
struggled even when there were no miracles to see.
My second observation is one of hindsight. I agree with some of my
colleagues that perhaps it would have been better had we deferred action on
the vote on Second Reading, in order for us to reflect as much as possible, if
there are any differences between our thoughts and those of the people
whom we will consult.
However, I vote yes because in my opinion the substance adequately meets
the criterion of reflecting the sentiments of the people.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
...........
...........
Yes
Ople
Padilla
...........
...........
...........
...........
Yes
...........
...........
...........
Romulo
...........
...........
Sarmiento
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
SR. TAN: With all due respect, I register a negative vote. I feel the Preamble
does not convey in word or sense the soul of a people that has gone through
decades of tyranny, protest, suffering and courage. Perhaps were this
Preamble written after the public hearings and after the main body of the
Constitution had been written, there would have been greater possibility to
bear this imprint and specificity. There was no substantial reason for such
haste, at what price.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Tingson
...........
We are reminded by the Scriptures that man does not live on bread alone. I
am voting yes because of the indescribable lovely word love. There is
nothing wrong in incorporating that word into our Constitution because the
recent revolution was a demonstration of love. Of the words faith, hope and
love, the greatest is love. We could say that truth, justice, freedom, equality
and peace are also the word love. So, it is beautiful that we have placed it
there.
Madam President, again, my vote is yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Treas
...........
Uka
...........
...........
Yes
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those
who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Alonto
Colayco
...........
...........
Ople
...........
R.C.C. NO. 12
Wednesday, June 18, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:09 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by Honorable Roberto C. Concepcion.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. CONCEPCION: God Almighty and Fountain of all blessings, we thank Thee
for the honor of being Members of this Constitutional Commission.
Help us capture the spirit of the fateful days of February 22 to 25 when we
found our national identity. We are filled with pride at being Filipinos and
have developed a renewed faith in our capacity to govern ourselves.
Infuse in us the essence of a truly representative democracy, which is
founded upon a recognition of the extraordinary potentialities of the ordinary
man, relies upon the majority rule, and upholds the rights of minorities.
Guide us in the awesome task of fashioning our basic political structure, with
a government deriving its powers from the governed, always responsive to
the will of the people and subject, at all times, to their authority as sole
repositories of state sovereignty.
Give us the light to ensure full protection of human rights without any
limitations or restrictions except only those clearly demanded by the defense
or survival of those very human rights.
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Present *
Present
Present *
Present
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
ITS
CONTROL
AND
AN
ARTICLE
SYSTEM
OF
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from the Maternal and Child Health Association of the Philippines
(MCHAP) signed by Dr. Fe del Mundo and Dr. Aquilino B. Esguerra,
transmitting proposals for the protection of Filipino mothers and children.
(Communication No. 17 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Honorable Celerina G. Gotladera, Officer-in-Charge, Civil Service
Commission, transmitting proposals bearing on the Civil Service.
(Communication No. 18 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from the PLUM Federation signed by Messrs. Jesus P. Robleza and
Salvador A. Purisima, proposing provisions on free choice of employment;
just and fair conditions of work; a unicameral legislature; creation of a
Peoples Tribune to nominate judicial and executive officers; limiting to
Filipinos the exploitation of natural resources and operation of public utilities;
use of government funds for social services; and the inclusion of labor and
industrial relations courses in all levels of education.
(Communication No. 19 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Assistant Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. CALDERON: May I request that Commissioner Tingson be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, on the desk of everyone of the
honorable Commissioners is a copy of a personalized Good News Bible which
is a loving gift from the Philippine Bible Society which has existed in our
country since the year 1899. On behalf of my colleagues in this Commission,
I would like to express our gratitude for this beautiful gift which is indeed a
commendable gift to receive today as expressed by Commissioner Tan to me
a while ago.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, on the desk of everyone of the honorable
Commissioners is a copy of a personalized Good News Bible which is a loving
gift from the Philippine Bible Society which has existed in our country since
the year 1899. On behalf of my colleagues in this Commission, I would like to
express our gratitude for this beautiful gift which is indeed a commendable
gift to receive today as expressed by Commissioner Tan to me a while ago.
The present Chairman of the Philippine Bible Society is Ambassador
Emmanuel Pelaez, who is also our Ambassador to Washington, D.C.; the ViceChairman, who is present in our hall today, is Bishop George Castro; the
Corporate Secretary is Justice Jose Feria; and the members of the board are
Dr. Saturnino P. Garcia and Mr. Johnny K. Sy. The head or the Chairman of the
Translation Committee is none other than Monsignor Moises Andrade, Jr.
May I also mention that aside from these officers, present in our midst today
are the following management officers Mr. Medarlo Rivera, General
Secretary; Mr. Querubin Canlas, Jr., head of the Communications and
Development Section; and Messrs. Dominador Lorente and Gaylord Massido,
staff representatives. Our own Commissioner Cirilo Rigos was President of
the Philippine Bible Society for two consecutive terms immediately preceding
the presidency of Ambassador Emmanuel Pelaez.
This particular copy, Mr. Presiding Officer, has the imprimatur of His
Eminence, Jaime Cardinal Sin.
The Bible, according to the Gideons, contains the mind of God, the state of
man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of
believers. Its doctrines are holy; its, precepts are binding; its histories are
true; and its decisions are immutable. Read it to be wise; believe it to be
safe; and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support
you, and comfort to cheer you.
It is the travellers map, the pilgrims staff, the pilots compass, the soldiers
sword, and the Christians charter. Here, paradise is restored, heaven
opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.
Christ is its grand subject, our good its design and the glory of God its end. It
should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet. We should read it
slowly, frequently and prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory
and a river of pleasure. It is given us in life, will be opened at the judgment
and be remembered forever.
It involves the highest responsibility, for it will reward the greatest labor and
will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.
May I then say and repeat, on behalf of everybody here, a big thank you,
maraming salamat po to the Philippine Bible Society.
R.C.C. NO. 13
Thursday, June 19, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:10 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Calderon Muoz Palma,
opened the session.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Bacani
Bengzon
Bennagen
Bernas
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Colayco
Concepcion
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
PROVISION
Jose Rizal did not live to a ripe old age; hence, our endless wonder at how a
man could compress in so brief a lifetime such a nationalistic and intellectual
career. Jose Rizal was a novelist, a doctor of medicine, a painter, historian,
sculptor, architect, surveyor, engineer, inventor, ethnologist, naturalist and
philologist.
Rizal could speak 22 languages, native and foreign. In the words of a foreign
contemporary, Dr. Ferdinand Blumentritt: Not only is Rizal the most famous
man of his own people, but the greatest man the Malay race has produced.
I am certain that when we and our American friends were assembling the
identity of the future Republic of the Philippines, everyone was struck by the
sincerity of purpose and the glitter of genius to be found in Dr. Jose Rizal that
there was no doubt of his being the national hero. Jose Rizal proved what a
Filipino can become. He had shown what lofty purposes the Filipino can
embrace.
Rizal defined our identity and, in the end, he had proved to what extent the
Filipino was willing to go to prove the things that he believed in. It is beautiful
to read what he wrote in Hongkong prior to his return to the Philippines then,
in a letter that he left with Dr. Marques to be opened after his death. He said
in that letter:
Always have I loved our unhappy land, and I am sure that I shall continue
loving it till my last moment in case men prove unjust to me. My career, my
life, my happiness all I have sacrificed for love of it. Whatever my fate, I
shall die blessing it and longing for the dawn of its redemption.
Rizal had personified the very best in the Filipino. How else can we say it? By
the time he was 35 years old, he was dead. He himself had premonitions of
his untimely demise and yet he did not despair, but had worked and studied
relentlessly and accomplished so much.
Rizal, were he alive today, would not be out of a job because his knowledge
and skills were truly universal. Certainly, he will not be like some politicians
who would howl and whimper when relieved of their positions in government
because their prospects for employment had dimmed. And not only that Jose
Rizal would not be out of a job; he would have a lot to say to his countrymen
besides, especially to the Members of this august Constitutional Commission.
A Constitution is sometimes called a document of a people embodying their
highest ideals and deepest aspirations. Indeed, how else can it be when it
establishes the government and claims the overall control of society.
In preparing these brief remarks, I have scoured for an appropriate passage
in the works of our greatest hero that might serve as a fitting advice to us
here. There is a multitude of them, to be sure. But I was looking for one that
will make us remember who we are and what truly we should become. After
all, what I am is Gods gift to me and what I become is my gift to God. For in
my humble understanding, it would be the greatest blunder to fail this test in
writing a Constitution. Therefore, these are the words of Simon, a character
in the novel of Jose Rizal, entitled El Filibusterismo, and I quote:
You ask for the hispanization of our country, and you do not see that what
you are begging for is suicide, the destruction of your nationality, the
annihilation of your fatherland and the consecration of tyranny.
The Spanish conquistadores brought with them arms to subjugate and rule
us. It would seem historically logical that the only way to overthrow that rule
was to resort to arms. And yet Jose Rizal, the historian and student of great
human affairs, did not teach his people to bear arms for their liberation. In an
age of great political ferment, he cautioned against the use of arms, against
a revolution, and advised his own people, tyrannized for centuries, to work
instead for a peaceful political transformation. The father of Asian
nationalism, Dr. Jose Rizal, was an early believer in nonviolence.
This is supposed to be the great defect in that great man; the reason why to
some of us he is not the greatest national hero. To these dissenters, a
revolution without blood is not a revolution, as if the spilling of blood alone
can wash away so much shame, so much abomination. But I should say this
nonviolent attitude in Dr. Jose Rizal is an added value instead of a defect.
Christianity itself was a peaceful revolution, a spiritual upheaval that had
transformed society and individuals, perhaps more deeply than any political
ideology in history. Mahatma Gandhi led a civilian disobedience movement
that gained for India its independence. Martin Luther King won Negro rights
through nonviolent means. And only lately, the Filipino people had succeeded
in frustrating the governing will of a power that the people had perceived to
be illegitimate, also through a revolution that did not call for arms. May I say
that this is a legacy from that greatest of Filipinos, Dr. Jose Rizal, our own
kababayan.
I should like to believe that to struggle with arms for our liberation is to be
hispanized. I should like to believe that Dr. Jose Rizal would rather that his
people, the Filipinos, struggle to free themselves by means that are peaceful,
dignified and do not do violence to man himself. I believe that this is a great
legacy. And, finally, I believe that this legacy should find expression in the
Constitution that we are writing for the Filipino people.
Thank you, beloved colleagues, and thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:Those who are citizens
of the Philippines at the time of the ratification of this Constitution.
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the ratification of
this Constitution.
This is bodily lifted from the 1973 Constitution which was also bodily lifted by
the 1973 Constitution from the 1935 Constitution. Whoever are citizens of
the Philippines now are recognized by this Constitution as citizens of the
Philippines.
Paragraph 2 states: Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines. Again, this is bodily lifted from the provision of the 1973
Constitution which was a departure from the 1935 Constitution.
Under the 1935 Constitution, to be a natural-born citizen, both your father
and your mother should have been Filipino citizens. Under this provision, if at
the time of an infants birth, either the father or the mother is a Filipino
citizen, that infant will also be deemed a Filipino citizen. Paragraph 3 states:
. . . Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
This paragraph is in the nature of a transitory provision.
We will recall that under the 1935 Constitution, if a child was born of a
Filipino mother married to an alien, the child was given a right to elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. So, when the 1973
Constitution was approved, there were children who had not yet reached the
age of majority and had not yet had the opportunity to elect Philippine
citizenship. This provision is intended to take care of them anytime up to .the
time they reach the age of majority and, thus, elect Philippine citizenship. So,
this is applicable only to children of Filipino mothers and alien fathers born
prior to January 17, 1973. Upon the effectivity of the new Constitution of
1973, every child born of a Filipino mother automatically becomes a Filipino.
Paragraph 4 partly states: Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law, which is lifted from the 1973 provision. In Resolution No. 7 of
Commissioner Davide, there is an addition which reads exactly this way:
Provided, however, that the naturalization of aliens under a decree of the
previous regime shall be subject to judicial confirmation. Admission to
Philippine citizenship is a privilege which can be revoked anytime in the
manner and for causes provided by law.
The thinking of the Committee on the subject is that we should drop this
suggested amendment for the following reasons: First, this could be divisive.
Second, there are provisions in the Naturalization Law for stripping a
naturalized person of citizenship, if certain conditions are not satisfied. Third,
we are afraid that this could unduly burden the courts. So, the thinking of the
Committee, as far as the suggestion of Commissioner Davide is concerned, is
to drop this amendment. Hence, that answers the question: Who are citizens
of the Philippines? Perhaps we can pause here and go into some discussions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Davide). Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON. I have some questions on paragraph 1 of Section 1. Would
Commissioner Bernas answer some questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Davide). The Commissioner may do so, if he so
desires.
MR. BERNAS. Willingly.
MR. BENGZON. The word adoption was used under the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions. Did the Committee change this to ratification? Both the 1935
and the 1973 Constitutions state: Those who are citizens of the Philippines
at the time of the adoption of this Constitutions are Filipino citizens. But
when we read Section 1, the word adoption is changed to ratification. Did
the Committee make this change?
MR. BERNAS. Ratification is the exact word in Resolution No. 7. I would also
say that a constitution is adopted upon its ratification.BENGZON. So actually,
the preference of the Committee is to use the word ratification?
MR. BENGZON. So actually, the preference of the Committee is to use the
word ratification?
MR. BERNAS. Yes.
MR. BENGZON. As regards Section 1, paragraph 4, I understand that those
who have become naturalized according to a decree that was promulgated
by the past dispensation are now Filipino citizens. The Committee senses
that it will no longer burden them with a judicial affirmation.
MR. BERNAS. Yes.
MR. BENGZON. After the ratification of this Constitution that we are making,
what then would happen to the decree issued by the former President that
simplified the naturalization process? Would that be automatically null and
MR. BERNAS. No, if they were born on or before January 17, 1973 they should
not come under paragraph 2.
MR. SUAREZ. The way paragraph 2 is worded is not prospective in
application. It says here: Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines. There is no required qualification. So, should we limit the
application and operation of that particular paragraph only to those who
were born after 1973? Is my understanding correct?
MR. BERNAS. Yes. That is my understanding on the basis of the debates in
the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and because of that, its delegates
thought that paragraph 3 was necessary.
If paragraph 2 is retrospective, then paragraph 3 would not be necessary.
MR. SUAREZ. In view of the Commissioners interpretation, would he suggest
the deletion of paragraph 3 of Section I of the Article on Citizenship?
MR. BERNAS. No, the Committee has a different suggestion in the definition
of natural-born citizen. If we will jump to Section 4 of the 1973 Constitution,
it says here that a natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect
his citizenship. The Committee added this proviso: PROVIDED THAT MORE
WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1,
PARAGRAPH 3, SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS.
MR. SUAREZ. May I point out the danger of that proposal. It is theoretically
possible that the mother herself is not a natural-born citizen, and she may
have acquired her citizenship by naturalization after the birth of that minor
child. The child, being a minor, would follow constitutionally the citizenship of
the unnatural-born mother. Would the Commissioner go to the extent of
recommending that a child born under these circumstances be considered a
natural-born citizen and, therefore, qualified to run for President of our
country? Is that the meaning?
MR. BERNAS. No, I would not, because as the Commissioner described the
situation of the child, he would not satisfy the definition of paragraph 3 of
Section 1.
MR. SUAREZ. Yes, but that additional proposal referring to the elevation of
that child, born of a Filipino mother, to the category of a natural-born child is
fraught with difficulties.
MR. BERNAS. The reason behind that is just to equalize them with children
born under the provision of paragraph 2.
MR. SUAREZ. That mixed me up a little bit. The Commissioner has to pardon
me, but I am only concentrating on the automatic elevation of a child born of
a Filipino mother to the level of a natural-born child. I would venture the
opinion that is only possible, if the mother herself is a natural-born citizen of
our country. But if she acquires naturalization by law, and after that she gives
birth to this minor child, or at that time that minor child is legally carried by
the naturalization of the mother, does not the Commissioner think of the
problem that will arise in considering the child as a natural-born child?
MR. BERNAS. Under paragraph 2, if the mother acquires Philippine citizenship
before she-gives birth, the child will automatically become a natural-born
citizen.
MR. SUAREZ. Under paragraph 2?
MR. BERNAS. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BERNAS. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ. It does not say so, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BERNAS. It says a child born of a Filipino mother. It does not say a child
born of a naturalized Filipino mother. MR. SUAREZ. That is true, Mr. Presiding
Officer, but Section 2 does not say that the citizenship carries with it the
stamp of being a natural-born citizen. That is under paragraph 3, Section I,
as proposed by the Committee.
MR. BERNAS. No, not under Section 1, paragraph 3 but under Section 4.
MR. SUAREZ. Yes, Section 4, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BERNAS. Yes, Section 4. The child will be considered, as in fact he is, a
child born of a Filipino mother. In other words, the determinative point is:
What was the citizenship of the mother at the time of the birth of the child? If
the mother was a Filipino whether by naturalization or by birth at the time of
the birth of the child, the progeny is a natural-born citizen.
MR. SUAREZ. Excuse me, but let me refer the Commissioner to paragraph 2,
Section 1, Mr. Presiding Officer. It says Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines. It does not say citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the birth of the child. So it is theoretically possible, Mr. Presiding
Officer, that paragraph 2 would even apply to a situation where a child is
born of a naturalized father or mother.BERNAS. Correct, that is what I am
saying. But it does not apply to a situation where a child is born and then the
mother gets naturalized. That is a different story.
MR. BERNAS. Correct, that is what I am saying. But it does not apply to a
situation where a child is born and then the mother gets naturalized. That is
a different story.
MR. SUAREZ. That is why that would fall either under paragraph 3 or, as
proposed to be amended, paragraph 4.
MR. BERNAS. No, Mr. Presiding Officer. I am still confused, but thank you
anyway.
MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer, I am still confused, but thank you anyway.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Davide). What is the pleasure of Commissioner
Concepcion?CONCEPCION. Mr. Presiding Officer, I have two points on which I
would appreciate a clarification. The draft prepared by the Committee seems
to liberalize naturalization proceedings. Is that impression correct?
MR. CONCEPCION. Mr. Presiding Officer, I have two points on which I would
appreciate a clarification. The draft prepared by the Committee seems to
liberalize naturalization proceedings. Is that impression correct?
MR. BERNAS. With reference to children born of Filipino mother and alien
father prior to the liberalization of the old law in 1971. That is the only
liberalization added by the Committee.
MR. CONCEPCION. In principle, would the Commissioner favor the idea that
we adopt the policy of being more strict insofar as naturalization is
concerned?
MR. BERNAS. In so far as naturalization is concerned, yes.
MR. CONCEPCION. I will not discuss now the question of liberalization insofar
as children born of a Filipino mother and an alien father are concerned.
MR. BERNAS. That is the only one which has been liberalized by the
Committee.CONCEPCION. I will not go deep into that question as yet. My
next question is on paragraph 4 which provides that those who are
naturalized in accordance with law are Filipino citizens.
MR. CONCEPCION. I will not go deep into that question as yet. My next
question is on paragraph 4 which provides that those who are naturalized in
accordance with law are Filipino citizens.
MR. BERNAS. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. CONCEPCION. Would the Commissioner favor the insertion of the word
JUDICIALLY before naturalized so it would read: JUDICIALLY naturalized in
accordance with law? I ask this question because during the Marcos regime,
the President issued a decree permitting administrative naturalization. And
even in cases of judicial naturalization, I know for a fact that there have been
many, many irregularities made possible by the cooperation of the
prosecuting force and court personnel. I have been made to understand that
under the decree permitting administrative naturalization, there have been
far more irregularities.
MR. BERNAS. First of all, perhaps I would disagree with the statement by the
Gentleman that naturalization under former President Marcos was
administrative naturalization. I think it was legislative naturalization. The
administrative process was simply for the purpose of screening. It was
legislative naturalization because the operative act which naturalized these
people was the decree with the force of law specifically naturalizing these
individuals. So I would say that I would perhaps oppose the idea of
naturalization solely by judicial process because I also accept the possibility
of naturalization by legislative process.CONCEPCION. I brought out the idea
of judicial naturalization precisely to avoid naturalization either by legislation
or by decree. I think a good many of the Members of the Commission are
lawyers, and I am sure many of them have had experience in the matter of
judicial naturalization by even the court personnel. I have heard stories
about officials of the prosecutory force and practicing lawyers who have
made fortunes in naturalization proceedings. Insofar as that is concerned,
what would be the difference if naturalization takes place by legislation?
Would this not offer the temptation which, we are told very often, politicians
find irresistible additional income through legislative naturalization, since it is
something that though affecting national interest apparently is not
controversial, though not actually a matter of attitude or policy? But there
seems to be a general feeling that the process of legislation is often
dominated by the policy: You scratch my back and I will scratch yours. That
is why I was hoping that the Committee would find it advisable to adopt a
restrictive policy by authorizing naturalization solely by judicial proceedings.
MR. CONCEPCION. I brought out the idea of judicial naturalization precisely to
avoid naturalization either by legislation or by decree. I think a good many of
the Members of the Commission are lawyers, and I am sure many of them
have had experience in the matter of judicial naturalization by even the court
personnel. I have heard stories about officials of the prosecutory force and
practicing lawyers who have made fortunes in naturalization proceedings.
Insofar as that is concerned, what would be the difference if naturalization
takes place by legislation? Would this not offer the temptation which, we are
told very often, politicians find irresistible additional income through
legislative naturalization, since it is something that though affecting national
interest apparently is not controversial, though not actually a matter of
attitude or policy? But there seems to be a general feeling that the process
of legislation is often dominated by the policy: You scratch my back and I
will scratch yours. That is why I was hoping that the Committee would find it
advisable to adopt a restrictive policy by authorizing naturalization solely by
judicial proceedings.
MR. BERNAS. Certainly, the Committee will entertain such amendments
during the period of amendments.
MR. CONCEPCION. I touch on this question because we have the problem of
becoming overpopulated. We are trying to persuade the people, the naturalborn Filipinos to slow down our population growth. I hope we would not
impose upon them the duty to limit the number of their children, although
we still adopt measures encouraging foreigners to reside in the Philippines
and become Filipinos. This seems to be rather incongruous.
So, I would prefer and suggest that naturalization be possible only through
judicial proceedings, without prejudice to legislative grants of honorary
citizenship, without the rights of a naturalized citizen. The number of cases
for naturalization has grown considerably since the adoption of the 1935
Constitution which limits the enjoyment of natural resources and the
participation in the operation of public utilities to citizens of the Philippines. A
liberalization through legislative action would enhance the problem of
reserving the enjoyment of our resources to Filipinos and not only in terms of
physical or tangible possessions but also insofar as human resources are
concerned. Many Filipinos had to go abroad for employment opportunities. So
I would earnestly welcome and suggest the adoption of the principle that
naturalization may be effected only through judicial proceedings, without
prejudice to the authority of the Assembly to confer honorary citizenship
devoid of all the right to enjoy natural resources and participate in the
operation of public utilities.
MR. BERNAS. Certainly, our Committee will entertain such an amendment at
the proper time.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Davide). What is the pleasure of Commissioner
Treas?
MR. TREAS. Will Commissioner Bernas answer a few questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Davide). He may yield, if he so desires.
MR. BERNAS. Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. TREAS. The Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and
Obligations and Human Rights has more or less decided to extend the
MR. TREAS. I see. Just one more question: Did the Committee not think of
preventing in the future any situation of indiscriminate grants of Filipino
citizenship by decree or presidential action and of safeguarding that?
MR. BERNAS. I guess the Committee was of the belief that there is nothing in
the Constitution which would stop indiscriminate actions in the future. But we
do say those who are naturalized in accordance with law, which decision, I
guess, is to leave to future legislation the formulation of wise naturalization.
MR. TREAS. Thank you very much.
MR. NOLLEDO. Mr. Presiding Officer, will Reverend Father Bernas yield to
interpellations?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Davide). Commissioner Nolledo is recognized,
then Commissioner Romulo.
MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Reverend Father Bernas I
add Reverend for we call him only Father Bernas. I think the right address
should be Reverend.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I think Reverend Father Bernas will remember that I was
the one who wrote the decision in the 1971 Constitutional Convention in the
case of Moreno vs. Ernesto Ang.
MR. BERNAS. I do not remember but I am glad the Gentleman reminded me.
MR. NOLLEDO. And I remember very well that in Reverend Father Bernas
well-written book, he said that the decision was designed merely to
accommodate former Delegate Ernesto Ang, and that the definition on
natural-born citizen has no retroactive effect, rather only prospective effect. I
was nervous when then Mr. Pacificador questioned the citizenship of Chief
Justice Teehankee because had Mr. Pacificador read and cited the Reverends
book, the status of Chief Justice Teehankee would have been prejudiced. I
prayed hard that Mr. Pacificador would not read it, anyway he does not know
how to read good books. My prayer was answered because I successfully
defended the citizenship of Chief Justice Teehankee.
Now it seems to me that Reverend Father Bernas is going against his
contention by supporting the amendment.
MR. BERNAS. As the Commissioner can see, there has been an evolution in
my thinking.NOLLEDO. Yes, it seems to me because Reverend Father Bernas
has a very progressive mind. I am happy I am now vindicated.
just about summed up the Filipino exodus at that time. But today there is
what looks like a Filipino diaspora where hundreds of thousands have left and
hundreds of thousands are going to leave in the next few years.
I would like to solicit the Committees attention to the possibility that many
of our countrymen later on will genuinely repent about their having
embraced a foreign citizenship, and when they are ready to come back home
and readopt their citizenship, it will be relatively simpler for them and there
will be no hassle doing this.
Thank you, Commissioner Bernas.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Davide). The Assistant Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. CALDERON. All good things must come to an end . . .DE CASTRO. Just
one questions please.
MR. DE CASTRO. Just one questions please.
MR. CALDERON. Mr. Presiding Officer, I move for the adjournment of the
session.
MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer, for my peace of mind, I would like to
ask this question of the honorable Committee member.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Davide). With the permission of the Floor
Leader, may we allow Commissioner de Castro to have the floor?
MR. CALDERON. Mr. Presiding Officer, I withdraw my motion for adjournment.
MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
May Commissioner Bernas yield to a few questions?
MR. BERNAS. Very willingly, yes.
MR. DE CASTRO. A while ago, I heard the Honorable Bernas state that there
is no possibility of a double citizenship under his proposal.
MR. BERNAS. I said there is a possibility.
MR. DE CASTRO. It is not a possibility, it is true right now. My daughter
married a Swiss; therefore, she became a Swiss citizen. Then under the
decree on repatriation, I had her repatriated sometime in 1982 and she
became a Filipino, but she is carrying a Swiss passport because she is still a
Swiss. As of now, she has a double citizenship. Will you agree to that
situation?
MR. BERNAS. As I said, there are people enjoying dual citizenship.
MR. DE CASTRO. Yes. I would like the question resolved for my peace of mind.
My daughter married a Swiss in 1970 and she automatically became a Swiss.
As she was a vice consul in the Philippine Embassy in Paris, she had to quit,
or she had to be eased out of office because she was already a Swiss. Then a
baby was born in 1974 when she was still a Swiss. Sometime in 1982, I had
her repatriated and she became a Filipino. Now, can we say that her child is
a Filipino considering that Section 1, paragraph 2 states that Those whose
fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines are therefore considered
citizens of the Philippines?
MR. BERNAS. My understanding of subparagraph 2 of Section I is that it
applies to children born of Filipino parents at the time of birth.
MR. DE CASTRO. But nothing in this provision states that it is at the time of
birth. It simply says: Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines. And since my daughter is now a citizen of the Philippines,
having been repatriated sometime in 1981 or 1982. . .
MR. BERNAS. As I said, the letter of the law is subject to your interpretation.
As a matter of fact, a careful reading of the debates of the 1971
Constitutional Convention clearly reveals the intention that this applies only
to children born of parents who are Filipino citizens at the time of birth.
MR. DE CASTRO. This will be subject to interpretation by the . . .
MR. BERNAS. I am not aware of any definitive decision of the Supreme Court
on this matter.
MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you, Commissioner Bernas.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Davide). The Assistant Floor Leader is
recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. CALDERON. Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we adjourn until nine
oclock tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Davide). Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine oclock in
the morning.
It was 7:01 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 14
Friday, June 20, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:26 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. DAVIDE: Almighty and eternal God and Lord of Lords,
We know that You are here in our midst, Never have You left this Hall, Even if
at times we have neglected Your call.
In the past, our people may have forgotten You, But You kept them always in
Your loving care. You delivered them from the bondage of slavery, And
ransomed them from captivity by an oppressive regime.
We are now at the dawn of a new day, At the threshold of a new order.
Repentant of our past indifference and apathy, We now pledge to build a just
and humane society, a government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations under the rule of law, and a regime of truth, justice, freedom,
love, peace and equality.
We are commissioned to write a new Constitution to achieve these ends.
Our people expect much from us. We can give no more to them than what
You give to us.
Without You, we are nothing, Without You, we can give nothing, For
everything comes from You. A good Constitution can come only from You. For
You are the Supreme Lawgiver.
As we then work together To draft the fundamental law for our Republic,
Grant us the grace to forget ourselves. Illumine our minds with Your Wisdom,
Inflame our hearts with Your Love. Let our minds think and our hearts love
only for You, the Philippines and the Filipinos; Let our hands write and our
tongues speak only for You, the Philippines and the Filipinos.
So that unceasing in our work And measuring our lives only in terms of loss
and not of gain ALL FOR YOU We shall merit reward by the approval of
our work by the people.
Help us, O God, we pray.
Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Alonto
Aquino
Azcuna
Bacani
Bengzon
Bennagen
Bernas
Rosario Braid
Brocka
Calderon
Castro de
Colayco
Concepcion
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
*
*
*
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Present *
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Gascon
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
RESOLUTION
PROPOSING
THE
CONSTITUTIONAL BODY TO BE
APPOINTMENTS.
CREATION
OF
AN
INDEPENDENT
KNOWN AS THE COMMISSION ON
R.C.C. NO. 15
Monday, June 23, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:07 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Vicente B. Foz.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. FOZ: Almighty God, give us the strength to work harder than ever
before. Teach us to share further the little that we know and have, so that
we, Your servants, may achieve our common goal.
Make us forget our self-interests, prejudices, suspicions, intolerance and
hatred, and listen to our people who are far wiser than us. Persuade those of
our people who still revere on a pedestal a fallen and false idol, to go the way
of peace. Help us, Lord, to meet our self- imposed deadline for the sake of
our nation and for Your greater glory. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Alonto
Aquino
Azcuna
Bacani
Bengzon
Bennagen
Bernas
Rosario Braid
Brocka
Calderon
Castro de
Colayco
Concepcion
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Maambong
Monsod
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
from that, a letter was also sent to the Honorable Gonzales, the Minister of
Justice.
The Secretary-General is, therefore, requested
communication and to seek immediate action.
to
follow
up
our
I really do not think that there is anything awkward in giving the people a
chance to communicate to us, postage-free, without giving that same
privilege to ourselves. As a matter of fact, I think our people will appreciate
this.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: It is customary and normal that when we receive
communications, even though we could not really reply in such a manner
that would satisfy the sender, we make a reply. And I think all of us are
agreed that we receive mails and they are increasing everyday, Madam
President. It is inconvenient for us to go to the Post Office, buy stamps and
mail our letters. I do not think the Post Office will lose much money, if we are
granted franking privilege.
I submit, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commission now ready to vote?
SOME MEMBERS: Yes.
VIVA VOCE THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the motion of
Commissioner Maambong, please say yea.
SEVERAL MEMBERS: Yea
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are against, say nay.
SEVERAL MEMBERS: Nay.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Which is which now? We really cannot distinguish the yeas
and the nays. We will just go by the raising of hands.
Those in favor of the motion of Commissioner Maambong to also grant
franking privilege to the Commissioners, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand )
Those against the motion, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 9 votes in favor and 26 against, the motion is lost. Now, I
think there was a motion to continue the freewheeling discussion on
citizenship. That was the subject of our last meeting;
DISCUSSION ON CITIZENSHIP
Continuation
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Concepcion be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you, Madam President. In more ways than one, the
matter of citizenship is very important in the Philippines. From the point of
view of policy, there is the question of whether or not we should liberalize
the acquisition of Philippine citizenship. The second point is whether or not
we favor double nationality. Both bring with them some important problems.
Firstly, who are citizens of the Philippines? They are those provided for in
Article IV of the 1973 Constitution.
The 1935 and 1973 Constitutions provide that citizens of the Philippines are,
firstly, those who were citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption
of said constitutions. Secondly, under the 1935 Constitution, those born in
the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this
Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands. This
provision has no counterpart in the 1973 Constitution. The reason is obvious.
In 1973 those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who had been
elected to public office in the Philippines before the adoption of the 1935
Constitution were already part of those who were Filipinos at the time of the
adoption of the 1973 Constitution.
Thirdly, under paragraph (3) of Section I of Art. II of the 1935 Constitution
those whose fathers were citizens of the Philippines were citizens thereof.
This tenet has been maintained in the 1973 Constitution, which, however,
has liberalized it in two respects: Pursuant to Section 1, Art. III of the 1973
Constitution, a female citizen who marries an alien retains her Philippine
citizenship unless, by her act or omission, she is deemed to have renounced
her citizenship. Furthermore, her children, by an alien father, became
citizens of the Philippines upon birth. These children, pursuant to the 1935
Constitution, do not follow their mothers nationality, but may elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Accordingly, they
are natural-born citizens of the Philippines under the 1973 Constitution,
although they were not so under the 1935 Constitution.
Pursuant thereto, citizens of the Philippines are not only those who are so at
the time of the adoption of the said Constitution, and, inter alia, those whose
fathers are citizens of the Philippines regardless of the mothers nationality.
As regards those born of Filipino mothers, the 1935 Constitution merely gave
them the option to choose Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority, even, apparently, if the father were an alien or unknown. Upon the
other hand, under the 1973 Constitution, children of mixed marriages
involving an alien father and a Filipino mother are Filipino citizens, thus
liberalizing the counterpart provision in the 1935 Constitution by dispensing
with the need to make a declaration of intention upon reaching the age of
majority. I understand that the committee would further liberalize this
provision of the 1935 Constitution. The Committee seemingly proposes to
further liberalize the policy of the 1935 Constitution by making those who
became citizens of the Philippines through a declaration of intention to
choose their mothers citizenship upon reaching the majority age by
declaring that such children are natural-born citizens of the Philippines.
The nationality of the child of a Filipino father follows his nationality not that
of the alien mother. Thus, we favor the fathers nationality. This rule is
reversed when the father is an alien and the mother a Filipina. We then favor
the mothers nationality.
The first question is: Why does the draft resolution adopt the provision of the
1973 Constitution and not that of the 1935?
It may be said that our policy is Filipino first and always. But this is not so
under the policy of the 1973 Constitution. Rather, its result is the opposite.
Why?
Prior to the adoption of the 1935 Constitution, there had been very few
petitions for naturalization. The 1935 Constitution provided that the
exploitation, development and utilization of our natural resources was limited
to citizens of the Philippines and to corporations or associations at least 60
percent of the stocks or shares thereof were owned by citizens of the
Philippines. Soon thereafter there came an avalanche of petitions for
naturalization in our courts of justice. These petitions had significant
features:
(a) over 95 percent of the petitioners were nationals of the same country;
(b) practically all of them were engaged in business in the Philippines; and
(c) almost all of them had been residents of the Philippines for many years.
It was thus obvious that the main goal of their petitions for naturalization
was to qualify for the enjoyment and utilization of our natural resources. It
did not take long for us to feel the effects of the sudden increase in the
number of these naturalized citizens. For a number of years now, there is
hardly any field of endeavor in the Philippines which is not dominated by
such naturalized Filipinos.
Upon the other hand, who would profit by the retention of the Philippine
citizenship by the Filipina wife of an alien and the Philippine citizenship of
their child? It is neither the child nor the childs Filipino mother, but her alien
husband and father of the child. This alien can, and has generally availed of
the privileges of his Filipino wife and that of their common child.
Then, again, conferment of Philippine nationality upon this child does not
merely put him on the same level as the child whose father and mother are
both citizens of the Philippines. Indeed, the alien father married to a Filipina
belongs to a group which is well organized and provided with financial means
and other resources available to Filipinas in general. Hence, the grant of
Philippine citizenship to the child of an alien father and a Filipino mother
entails an unfair discrimination against the full-blooded Filipino. And this is
amply attested to by the predominance of aliens in our economy.
I would prefer, therefore, to submit an amendment, a proposal for
amendment to revert to the provisions of the 1935 Constitution. How would
Father Bernas react to this idea?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I do not intend to debate the honorable Commissioner
Concepcion on the proposition that he has advanced, although I am
constrained to note the very unfortunate implications of his proposition. It is
dangerously and implicitly stated in his exposition that the principle of jus
sanguinis is capable of being dichotomized between the male and the female
parentage. This does not speak well of our protestations of commitment to
the equality of rights of sexes. It is only on that point that I would like to
register my observation, Madam President.
If, as it holds, the formulations of the Article on Citizenship already recognize
three basic principles: 1) the continuation of citizenship at the time of the
adoption of the 1986 Constitution; 2) the recognition of naturalization as a
legal procedure for acquisition of citizenship; and 3) the principle of jus
sanguinis, why do we have to unduly distinguish between the male and the
female parentage?
Thank you, Madam President.
recognized,
afterwards
MR. RODRIGO: According to the 1935 Constitution, the following are citizens
of the Philippines:
Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the
age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
We have incorporated this in the draft and, more, we consider them naturalborn citizens.
MR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: My question is: When this provision in the 1935 Constitution
was enacted, the voting age, as well as the age of majority, was 21. What is
the age of majority now that the voting age has been reduced to 18?
MR. BERNAS: The age of majority really depends on the purpose for which it
is being determined. For purposes of the Election Law, the age of majority is
18. For purposes of marriage, it is something else. For purposes of entering
into other contracts, it is something else also, as I recall.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President for purposes of this provision, what is the
age of majority?
MR. BERNAS: For purposes of this provision, the intendment is, I think, 21.
MR. RODRIGO: It says, upon reaching the age of majority. Is there a time
limit within which the option to choose citizenship may be availed of?
MR. BERNAS: The established jurisprudence on the subject is that it must be
within a reasonable time upon reaching the age of majority and this
reasonable time has been extended up to three years after reaching the age
of majority.
MR. RODRIGO: After three years?
MR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Beyond that would not be a reasonable time anymore?
MR. BERNAS: Although there have been extraordinary cases, three or four
years was considered reasonable time in the case of an individual who was
under the impression all along that he was a natural-born citizen.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I concur with the views of Commissioner
Concepcion. In the 1935 Constitution, the provisions on citizenship were
separated into those whose fathers and those whose mothers. In the
1973 Constitution, they were joined without choice or election provided in
Commonwealth Act 625. However, paragraph 3 of the 1973 Constitution
reads:
Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
It appears incongruous that in the 1973 Constitution, nothing is mentioned
about election, and yet it makes reference to the right of election pursuant to
or in accordance with the 1935 Constitution. That is why Commissioner
the Civil Code provides that the citizenship of the child follows that of the
mother. It is not because we want to encourage illegitimate or nonmarital
relationship between a Filipina and a foreigner, but the fact remains that in
such a case, we cannot establish paternity of the child. We know the fact of
birth by a mother, the fact of maternity is a ground for recognition. But birth
in itself is not a ground for paternity. There is really no clear relation between
the child and the father unless there are grounds for voluntary recognition or
compulsory acknowledgment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes. But we know for a fact that because of this provision,
alien fathers were encouraged to marry their Filipina live-in partners because
they had no more fear that if they marry, their children will follow the
citizenship of their fathers.
That is all, Commissioner Padilla.
MR. PADILLA: It does not follow that a foreign husband marries a Filipina
simply because the former wants the child to be a Filipino. That is non
sequitur, because the foreigner marries the Filipina perhaps because he
wants his child to follow his citizenship. That is the usual way the child
follows the citizenship of his father.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona wants to be recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
There are some observations I would like to make which are not related to
the point at issue. But in connection with the discussion we have just heard,
at the risk of being branded a male chauvinist, I would like to say that the
citizenship laws really distinguish between the father and the mother. For
example, under many citizenship laws, the wife follows the citizenship of the
husband. I am not aware of any law which provides that the husband follows
the citizenship of the wife.
Anyway, my observations are: First, with regard to Section 1, paragraph 2 of
Resolution No. 7 which says: Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines, I am wondering if we could use the expression Those born
of a Filipino father or mother. I suggest this in order to avoid some questions
that may arise because of the nonuse of the word born. For example, a
child is born of a Filipino father and during his minority, the father becomes a
naturalized citizen of another country. During the minority of the child, his
citizenship is challenged because his father is no longer a Filipino. Therefore,
the problem of determining whether that child under this provision is Filipino
or not will now come out. Also, this is clear as far as lawyers are concerned:
That adoption is a civil act and does not have an effect on citizenship
because citizenship is a political status. But I would like to seek clarification
from Honorable Bernas whether his Committee has considered this matter of
legal adoption. A child who is legally adopted by a Filipino father would
automatically be the child of that Filipino father.
Finally, I would like to mention that one of the matters discussed very
heatedly in the 1971 UP Law Center Constitution Project was the issue of
dual citizenship which I think should be discussed at length, if we have the
time.
Thank you.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, will the Gentleman yield to one more
question?
MR. GUINGONA: Willingly.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Did Commissioner Guingona say that the danger lies in
the fact that when a Filipino woman marries, an alien, she follows the
citizenship of her husband?
MR. GUINGONA: No, I did not talk about danger. I was just comparing. I just
said that there were distinctions found in citizenship laws even in our laws
such that the woman follows the citizenship of her husband. Nowhere do
we find a provision which says that the husband follows the citizenship of the
wife.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I thought the Commissioner expressed that fear.
Nevertheless, this point on the Filipino woman following the citizenship of her
husband is taken care of by Section 2, which states:
A female citizen of the Philippines who marries an alien shall retain her
Philippine citizenship, unless by acts or omission as defined and determined
by law she is deemed to have renounced her citizenship.
MR. GUINGONA: I was not expressing any fear but since the Commissioner
mentioned it, I would like to express the fear in connection with this because
here we will have a case of dual citizenship.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner
Commissioner Guingona?
Bernas
answer
the
query
of
naturalized citizens will dominate not only our economy but, also, our policymaking organs.
The present and the proposed constitutional provisions on citizenship are
inimical to national interest and conducive to serious problems of double
nationality and conflict of laws. It undermines family unity, for the alien
husbands national law may be inconsistent with the Philippine law on the
rights and prerogatives of the Filipina wife, particularly on the parental
authority over the children and the administration and disposition of the
conjugal property. No less serious are the effects of conflicts of allegiance
arising from double nationality.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Concepcion kindly yield to a question or two?
MR. CONCEPCION: Gladly.
MR. OPLE: I think the Commissioners remarks touched on a subject of great
strategic importance for national development and this has to do with
citizenship as the key to economic opportunities in the country. If I got the
Commissioners bearings right, he would as much as possible tighten up this
access to economic opportunities in the Philippines by more astringent
naturalization laws?
MR. CONCEPCION: Correct.
MR. OPLE: Does not the Commissioner think that this insight into our
situation is a little bit late because most of the overseas communities in the
Philippines that presumably the Commissioner referred to, according to my
impression, are already naturalized, leaving just a few perhaps of the older
generation who have remained obdurate in their attachment to, let us
mention the word, China, and therefore would like to die as Chinese rather
than take the daring act in their old age of changing their citizenship? So,
there are a few left who are subject to naturalization.
I think what has happened is, an assimilation policy, whether intended or
not, has been put into effect since the 1935 Constitution. As a result, you
have your national community now considerably enriched by fresh infusions
from another race. Today some columnists speak of the resurgence of the
celestial Filipinos and their new prominence in the halls of power.
I do not know about the exact correlation between a policy of assimilation
through naturalization and the distribution of economic opportunities. I think
some of us will recall that in the earliest decades of the Spanish colonization,
the Chinese in the Philippines were prevented from engaging in agriculture.
The Commissioner must recall that in the 16th and 17th centuries,
recognized until just about the era which Rizal wrote of in the Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo, they were denied access to agriculture and,
therefore, they decided to go massively into commerce and trade. And, of
course, the Filipinos remained the peasants, while the Chinese emerged as
the new class in business and industry
And more recently, I would like to ask Commissioner Concepcion if he
remembers the Filipino retail trade, the act nationalizing the retail trade,
because of the profound concern that the Commissioner is now reiterating
that even down to the last hamlet in the country it was these, I call them
celestial Filipinos or our celestial guests, who were running the sari-sari
stores. I think the effect was a massive displacement. And today, most of the
sari-sari stores are, in fact, run by Filipinos. In the meantime, the celestial
peddlers and small storekeepers have graduated into banking I think the
Commissioner also referred to that to a degree that they seem now to hold
the levers of power through the control of banking. So that whenever by law
or by policy one sought to displace them in one area, by some special gift
that they seem to possess and which we seem to lack, they just graduate
into a higher rank of control and prominence in our economic life. And,
therefore, perhaps, in the first place, it might be too late because most of
them have now become naturalized Filipinos; in the second place, the
assimilation policy seems to be not a total failure.
I remember a book out of the University of Chicago three or four years ago
wholly devoted to the thesis of how to make the most of the overseas
Chinese minorities in the economies of Southeast Asia, which means one can
regard them as an asset or a blessing rather than a bane, and I do not know
whether this is supported by the experience of Commissioner Concepcion.
But certainly, I know many Filipino-Chinese who seemed to have grown a
deep attachment to this country and who now seem to share the deepest
values that we have as Filipinos. There might be exceptions.
But I do not know if the experience of the Members of the Constitutional
Commission supports the observation that, in fact, the assimilation policy
has worked well and the Filipino-Chinese among us, especially the younger
generation, seem now to strongly identify with our own national values and
aspirations.
But, of course, I have no quarrel with the thesis put forward by Commissioner
Concepcion. I just thought we could put some of his remarks in a longer
historical perspective. And as far as I am concerned, I will not quarrel with his
proposal for raising the standards for the naturalization of future Filipinos.
address
some
questions
to
Commissioners
I am glad that the discussions on citizenship are on the less legalistic subject
of assimilation. I would like to ask the Commissioners about the advisability
of requiring naturalized citizens to genuinely integrate themselves in the
citizens and it may not be possible to divest them of their citizenship unless
they fall under the provisions of the naturalization law which also provide for
the cancellation of their certificates of citizenship.
During the time when I was a member of Congress for three terms, there was
no naturalization by legislation except in very few exceptions like in the
cases of those priests and educators who had spent practically their entire
lives in the Philippines and had rendered valuable services to the education
of our youth. So, when they mentioned the legislative process, I sort of
recognized reacted adversely because Congress had not granted
naturalization by legislation. What had been granted were naturalizations
through LOIs, which were administrative in nature through the Solicitor
Generals Office. In the past, as former solicitor generals, we were very strict
with regard to applications for naturalization. And even when the trial court
had granted them their petitions for naturalization, we usually appealed to
the Supreme Court for a review if we felt that there had been no complete
compliance with the qualifications and the disqualifications under the
Naturalization Law.
One more comment about Commissioner Guingonas remark that instead of
saying those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines, it
should be children born of Filipino fathers or mothers: the problem with
that suggestion, Madam President, is that we may be recognizing the
principle of jus soli when our jurisprudence and legislating have been
adhering to the principle of jus sanguinis.
Thank you.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. ALONTO: There being no more matters in the agenda, I move that we
adjourn until five oclock tomorrow afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at five oclock in the
afternoon.
It was 7:07 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the Roll Call.
R.C.C. NO. 16
Tuesday, June 24, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:17 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Edmundo G. Garcia.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. GARCIA: A reading from the Gospel according to Luke, Chapter 4, verses
16-19:
Then Jesus went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the
Sabbath he went as usual to the synagogue. He stood up to read the
Scriptures and was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the
scroll and found the place where it is written.
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has chosen me to bring good
news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and
recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed and announce that
the time has come when the Lord will save His people.
Dear God, our Father, You, who so loved the world that You pitched Your tent
among us, be with us today as we work together in drafting the law of the
land that will help set our people free: free from poverty and hunger, free
from injustice and oppression, free to break down the barriers which prevent
us from truly becoming brothers and sisters to one another.
Lord, Father of us all, forgive us for our shortcomings Help us to listen and
learn, to respect the word of another and to understand the concern of those
who are poor and powerless.
We are a rich country, but our people are poor. We are an independent
Republic, but we are still struggling to be sovereign. We want to be a nation,
proud to walk our own path, before the concert of nations.
Lord of our history, Father of our people, be with us as we march towards a
new day and help us realize in these halls that brother helped by brother is
like a strong city built on the rock of faith in our people and hope that one
day we shall all be free. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Alonto
Aquino
Azcuna
Bacani
Bengzon
Bennagen
Bernas
Rosario Braid
Brocka
Calderon
Castro de
Colayco
Concepcion
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present *
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
THE
THE
INDIVIDUAL
CITIZENS
RIGHT
TO
GAINFUL
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:50 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, I withdraw my last motion on the additional
member of the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies, and
instead I move to recognize Commissioner Foz.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I move to increase the membership of the
Committee on Constitutional Commissions from 11 to 13, if there is no
objection from our members, our present members being superstitious about
the number 13. It is my lucky number, though.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I just clarify. I actually have not
withdrawn from the Committee on Human Resources. That is why I was a
little surprised when I heard that I had withdrawn because I have not been a
member of that Committee since its inception.
Thank you.
MR. FOZ: I think that was a mistake, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople wants to be recognized.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, just a point of inquiry. There must be a principle
to be followed by the President and the officers of the conference with
respect to the equitable distribution of committee seats. If there is such a
principle, may we know about it. Is it a principle of equity in the sense that
those with fewer committees are being given more seats in the interest of a
fairer distribution? Is that correct, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, for the information of Commissioner Ople, preference is
given to those Members who have less than five committee memberships. In
other words, they can still participate in more activities of the committees.
MR. OPLE: That explains why I now have four. I am very honored to be
recommended to another committee in spite of the fact that I was not
consulted about it. But I do welcome my election to the Committee on Local
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, since there are some comments, I move that
the matter be transferred to tomorrows Order of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: We still have this motion of Commissioner Nieva to which
there has been an objection. Is Commissioner Nieva agreeable to postpone
action on her motion tomorrow?
MS. NIEVA: My attention was called to the fact that we are supposed to
adjourn at six oclock and that, therefore, we could discuss this tomorrow. So
I am open to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner agreeable to that?
MS. NIEVA: I am agreeable to that.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I have in mind tomorrows agenda of the
plenary session. I think the Assistant Floor Leader has said that tomorrow we
will continue the freewheeling discussion on citizenship. I have consulted
with some Members who believe that the subject of citizenship is now fully
covered and exhausted for purposes of a freewheeling debate, and I am
informed that Commissioner Nolledo is prepared to sponsor a committee
report dealing with the National Territory. May I, therefore, suggest, if the
Assistant Floor Leader agrees, that today we terminate the freewheeling
debate on citizenship and tomorrow devote our attention to the committee
report of the Rosales Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles. I understand that Commissioner Nolledo will help
sponsor this report and that he is in a position to do so tomorrow.
I so move, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I object to that motion because it would actually be a motion to
reconsider an earlier decision of the Commission. The committee report on
National Territory was directed to be deferred until after July 7. What could
probably be done tomorrow will only be a freewheeling discussion on
National Territory, but not on the report itself.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
R.C.C. NO. 17
Wednesday, June 25, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:14 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Present *
Present
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Present
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
LIBERTY
OF
ABODE
AND
TRAVEL
THE
STUDY
OF
THE
RELIGIOUS
OFFICER
(Mr.
Maambong):
Commissioner
Nieva
is
MS. NIEVA: Yesterday, there was an objection raised to the changing of the
name of the Committee on Social Justice and Social Services to COMMITTEE
ON SOCIAL JUSTICE. The motion was made at the request of all the members
of the Committee who felt that the phrase social justice necessarily
encompasses social services and that, therefore, specifying social services
would, in a way, restrict the scope of social justice.
The rationale behind the decision of the Committee on Social Justice and
Social Services to change its name primarily lies in the perception and
analysis of social justice as a general and broad concept which encompasses
virtually every facet of life of the individual and of society. So, the Committee
took as a working definition of social justice the definition of the Chairman
of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights which says that:
Social Justice, for us Filipinos, means a coherent intelligible system of law,
made known to us, enacted by a legitimate government freely chosen by us,
and enforced fairly and equitably by a courageous, honest, impartial and
competent police force, legal profession and judiciary that: (1) respects our
rights and our freedoms, both as individuals and as a people; (2) seeks to
repair the injustices that society has inflicted on the poor by eliminating
poverty as far as our resources and our ingenuity permit; (3) develops a selfdirected and self-sustaining economy that distributes its benefits to meet, at
first, the basic material needs for all, then to provide an improving standard
of living for all, but particularly for the lower income groups, with time
enough and space enough to allow them to take part in and to enjoy our
cultures; (4) changes our institutions and structures, our way of doing things
and relating to each other, so that whatever inequalities remain are not
caused by these institutions or structures, unless inequality is needed
temporarily to favor the least favored; (5) adopts means and processes that
are capable of attaining these objectives.
And so, the Committee has agreed to work for a separate article on social
justice which would necessarily encompass social services. With this broad
and expanded notion of social justice, our Committee believes that as a bare
minimum, social services are necessarily included. Therefore, our Committee
has decided to concentrate on several areas of concern such as: agrarian
reform, urban land reform, rural and urban community development, housing
and shelter, labor, health, education and roles and rights of peoples
organizations.
We think that if we add the area of social services to social justice, we would
then have to include also other areas that we are concerned with, like
agrarian and urban land reform, or perhaps peoples organizations. The
Committee believes that the nomenclature Committee on Social Justice
would be more expressive of its tasks and concerns.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Maambong):
Commissioner
Davide
is
MR. DAVIDE: I was the one who objected to the motion yesterday. After
listening to the explanation given and in the light of the fact that it was the
what we gave her except for some typographical errors which I or the public
relations office of this Commission would try to explain or correct.
An example is the reference to the per diems of the Commissioners in the
amount of P2,250,000 for 90 days at the rate of P500 a day per
Commissioner for actual attendance in sessions, committee meetings and
public hearings. I took pains to put these figures down in writing, and I also
gave an illustration. I said that if a Commissioner attended four or three
committee meetings plus a session in one single day, that Commissioner
would be entitled to P500 only and no more.
As a matter of fact, this amount P2,250,000 is now reduced because during
the first weekend, we had no sessions, committee meetings and public
hearings. Thus, no Commissioner received any per diem. So this is effectively
reduced by P48,000.
But this news article, perhaps, due to a typographical error, states that the
Commissioners per diems would amount to P2,250,000 for 90 days work,
not counting the P500, when, in fact, this P2,250,000 is precisely the total of
what the commissioners will receive at the rate of P500 a day for actual
attendance.
The other error is the statement that the Filipino people may end up paying
at least P1,356,145 a day. If we multiply this amount with 90 days, that
means we would need a total appropriation of more than P100 million for
three months, when, in fact, we only have P20 million. I also told the media
representative that we still expected to save P3 to P4 million from the P20
million. In my computation, our total expense for 90 days would be
P14,143,110 based on the proposed budget which, if we divide by 90, would
come out to about P157,000 a day and not P1,356,145 as reported. the third
typographical error is the phrase losing operations which connotes that we
are profit-making organization, when it should have been Lounge
Operations.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
With the Chairs permission, I would like to give my remarks on the matter of
citizenship.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Before Commissioner Guingona
makes his remark, the Chair takes note of his explanation and suggests that
the Committee on Public Information should draft the proper communication
to the paper referred to by Commissioner Guingona so that the date will be
properly corrected.
DISCUSSION ON CITIZENSHIP
Continuation
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. With the permission of the
Chair, may I suggest that we secure the cooperation of our two liaison
officers with media; namely, Commissioners Rama and Foz.
By way of clarification, I would like to assure our distinguished Vice-President
that when I proposed the change of the phrase Those whose fathers are
citizens of the Philippines to THOSE BORN OF FILIPINO FATHERS, there was
no intention whatsoever to propose the application of the principle of jus soli
in this jurisdiction.
As a matter of fact, the use of the words of Filipino fathers after the word
born expressed my intention that the principle of jus sanguinis should
apply. Of course, if the child is born abroad, say, in the United States, he may
become a citizen thereof through the application of the principle of jus soli
but such application would be effected by virtue of American law and not
ours.
The provision contained in the proposed resolution of Commissioner Davide
which says: Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines would make
the citizenship of the child dependent upon the citizenship of the father at
any time the question of citizenship is raised and not at the moment of his
birth as we pointed out in the illustration we gave the last time we spoke. If
the father should change his citizenship during the minority of the child, such
child would cease to be a citizen of the Philippines. This situation, therefore,
could result in confusion as to the question of his citizenship.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to express my full conformity with the
provision contained in the proposed resolution introduced by Commissioner
Davide, which reads, and I quote:
. . . those who are naturalized in accordance with law; provided, however,
that the naturalization of aliens under the decree of the previous regime shall
be subject to judicial confirmation.
May I say that I find the use of the words judicial confirmation instead of
judicial review to be fortunate. I recall that the expression judicial review
was used during the interpellations, because judicial review, in its strict
sense, is the power of the court to pass upon the constitutionality of the acts
of other departments of government and to declare null and void such of
them as are in contravention of the constitution. Since the 1973 Constitution
provides for naturalization in accordance with law and since Mr. Marcos
exercised lawmaking powers, there might have been some difficulty in
challenging the naturalization of aliens then by the Executive as being
unconstitutional.
Mr. Presiding Officer, there are two questions I would like to ask. The first is
directed to Commissioner Davide: If the naturalization of aliens under the
decree of the previous regime shall be established to be irregular because of
fraud, bribery, or other illegal acts, would the nonconfirmation of such
irregular naturalization have a retroactive effect? If so, what would be the
effect on the citizenship of the minor child born after the irregular
naturalization of the alien?
The second question is directed to both the Honorable Davide and the
honorable Chairman of the Committee on Citizenship: Would the
nonprohibition of Congress or the National Assembly to delegate or authorize
the President to fix or lay down rules concerning the qualifications of aliens
wishing to acquire Filipino citizenship and rules concerning proceedings for
the acquisition thereof mean that the Congress or the National Assembly
would have the power to delegate or authorize?
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, before the answers are given by those
from whom Commissioner Guingona sought clarifications, I would like to
correct his observation on the questions I raised when Commissioner Bernas
was on the floor.
I did not say that if there would be judicial confirmation of those citizens
naturalized under the decrees issued under the previous regime, there would
be a clogging of dockets in the court. What I expressed on the floor was the
concern of some Members that if the proposed judicial confirmation should
be required, there would be (1) the possible clogging of the dockets of the
courts, and (2) without the benefit of such judicial confirmation, there might
be a problem of security.
I was referring to the statements of other Commissioners who made these
observations. On that basis, I asked Commissioner Bernas whether or not his
committee had ascertained the number of aliens granted Philippine
citizenship under the liberalized procedure of the previous regime, for the
obvious reason that the greater the number of those who were so
naturalized, the graver is our concern. But if there were only a few, then it
would be of less concern for us. Let us say that there very only about fifty or
sixty who were granted citizenship through legislative naturalization, then it
would not pose a serious concern regarding the crowding of the court
dockets or the threat to national security as when the total number were
about 100,000.
Personally, I have made a statement elsewhere that I am in favor of the
proposed judicial confirmation through a summary proceeding as may be
authorized under conditions laid down by the legislature, instead of the
process of denaturalization, so that in such proceeding, we can weed out
those who were really not qualified but were granted Philippine citizenship
through that liberalized legislative procedure. I recall that Commissioner
Bernas said that from the records, I think, of the Office of either the Solicitor
General or the Ministry of Justice, the number could be ascertained.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The Assistant Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. CALDERON: We now start discussion on the National Territory provision,
and the first speaker whom I would like to call upon and whom I would like
the Chair to recognize is Commissioner Nolledo.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Maambong):
Commissioner
Davide
is
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:11 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The session is resumed.
The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I withdraw my previous
manifestation that we proceed to the discussions on the National Territory.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The manifestation is withdrawn.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like Commissioner Davide to be
given the floor.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Maambong):
Commissioner
Davide
is
OFFICER
(Mr.
Maambong):
Commissioner
Davide
is
MR. DAVIDE: Before we act on the motion, I would like to ask some
clarifications. Are we through with the Unfinished Business for today?
MR. BENGZON: The Unfinished Business is the freewheeling discussion on
citizenship.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. But I did not hear any motion to terminate the Unfinished
Business. I do not think we can proceed to resolving the motion on a special
order because under the Rules, paragraph (a) of Section 18, it is stated:
Unfinished Business Business being considered by the Commission at the
time of adjournment of its preceding session. Its consideration shall be
resumed until such Unfinished Business is disposed of. Thereafter, the
President shall call for the Business for the Day.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): With the indulgence of the two
Gentlemen on the floor, the Chair declares a suspension of session.
It was 6:17 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:20 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The session is resumed.
Before the Chair suspended the session, there were two Gentlemen on the
floor Commissioner Bengzon Chairman of the Steering Committee and
Commissioner Davide.
What is the pleasure of Commissioner Bengzon?
MR. BENGZON: In order to avoid any problems on technicality, may I,
therefore, move that we first terminate the freewheeling discussion on
Committee Report No. 4 on citizenship.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The is a motion to terminate the
Unfinished Business, which is the freewheeling discussion on citizenship.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hear none; the motion is
approved.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 7
(Article on Citizenship)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we consider Committee Report
No. 4 on Proposed Resolution No. 7, as reported out by the Committee on
Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): I there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none the motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 7 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of the
resolution without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole text thereof.
CITIZENSHIP
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the ratification of
this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five;
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
SECTION 2. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their
citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law,
to have renounced their citizenship.
SECTION 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner
provided by law.
SECTION 4. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship; Provided, That those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with Section 1, Paragraph 3 above shall also be deemed naturalborn citizens.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Bengzon is
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May I now request that Commissioner Bernas be recognized
to sponsor the committee report, which will thereafter be subject to
interpellations.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
recognized to sponsor Committee Report No. 4.
Commissioner
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER BERNAS
FR. BERNAS: The honorable Members of the Commission:
Bernas
is
Let me say that the greater part of my sponsorship has already been done.
So, I would like to refer to my previous remarks as part of my sponsorship.
What I would like to do today is just to touch on matters which I had not
touched on yet in my past appearances. I did not touch on Section 2 and I
did not touch on Section 3. Section 2 is simply a slight modification of the
1973 provision and the modification simply consists in desexing the
provision.
The 1973 provision states that a female citizen of the Philippines who
marries an alien shall retain her Philippine citizenship unless by act or
omission, as defined and determined by law, she is deemed to have
renounced her Philippine citizenship.
In our report, we have omitted any mention of sex, and we just say:
Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship
unless by their act or omission, they are deemed under the law to have
renounced their citizenship.
With respect to Section 3f there is no change made from the 1935 and 1973
provisions.
With respect to Section 4, the difference is in the number of the nouns and,
therefore, also of the corresponding verbs. In the 1973 provision, a naturalborn citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
In our proposal, natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect
their Philippine citizenship. We have also added a proviso which I already
explained in my previous appearance. With these remarks, I am ready to
answer whatever questions may be raised.
MR. AZCUNA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Maambong):
Commissioner
Azcuna
is
Constitution or ,would it also cover those who elected it under the 1935
Constitution?
FR. BERNAS: It would apply to anybody who elected Philippine citizenship by
virtue of the provision of the 1935 Constitution, whether the election was
done before or after January 17, 1973.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Will the sponsor yield to a question with respect to the
change in Section 2?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The distinguished sponsor may
yield, if he so desires.
FR. BERNAS. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: The provisions of the 1973 Constitution under consideration
were specifically with respect to a Philippine female citizen who married an
alien, and as a consequence, lost her Philippine citizenship, subject to the
conditions therein.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: Whereas, under the proposed amendment to Section 2,
however, there is no distinction between male or female citizens of the
Philippines who marry aliens. What would be the situation or contingency
envisioned here then since said Section 2 under the 1973 Constitution was
with respect to a female citizen marrying an alien?
FR. BERNAS: Yes. This provision was placed here to cover any possibility that
there might be a country by whose laws anybody who marries its citizen
acquires that countrys citizenship. I am not aware of any country which has
that law, but, just in case . . . this is also to protect the males.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Maambong):
Commissioner
Suarez
is
FR. BERNAS: Yes. It was only prior to 1973 that the 1935 Constitution was in
effect.
MR. SUAREZ: So, what I am suggesting is: Should we not spell that out in
black and white to reflect the thinking of the Committee members so there
will be no further doubt as to the restrictive application of paragraph 3,
Section 1?
FR. BERNAS: I do not have any doubt but if the body insists on the need for
further clarification, I certainly would entertain that.
MR. SUAREZ: The next question has something to do with Section 2 because
this was a derivation or partial derivation from Section 2 of the 1973
Constitution which specified categorically that it is applicable only to female
citizens.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Is the Gentleman aware of any instance where a male citizen of
any foreign country who marries a Filipino loses his citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: I am not aware of any now. We put it in as a cautionary clause
to protect the males, as I said .
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: I will yield to them.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Guingona?
MR. GUINGONA: I will yield.
MR. RODRIGO: I will yield.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Nolledo is
recognized because the other Commissioners who made reservations to
interpellate have yielded the floor.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): What is the pleasure of
Commissioner Nolledo?
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: In other words, is it correct to say that the expression, unless
by her act or omission she is deemed . . . is not self-executing; meaning,
there must be an implementing statute? Am I correct?
FR. BERNAS: If her citizenship is questioned in any proceeding, then the
implicit or explicit renunciation can be cited. In other words, this does not
automatically take place but it is a question of fact whether in truth she did
make a renunciation.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Bernas, since the 1973 Constitution was
adopted, I am not aware of any implementing statute or any law that
implements Section 2.
FR. BERNAS: I am not aware of anything explicit, but I think it has been
understood that if a person performs a pledge of allegiance to another
country, that is implicit renunciation of her citizenship here.
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, there is no need of any law before we may apply
Section 2.
FR. BERNAS: There is no need.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Maambong):
Commissioner
Rodrigo
is
MR. RODRIGO: The Gentleman said that according to jurisprudence this must
be exercised within three years . . .
FR. BERNAS: Within a reasonable time upon reaching the age of majority.
MR. RODRIGO: The Gentleman mentioned three years.
FR. BERNAS: I am aware of one occasion where a person under this situation
was allowed to make an election three years after he reached the age of
majority. And the condition was this: He was a person who all the time
believed that he was a citizen of the Philippines and because of that even
served in the Armed Forces. In recognition of this, the Supreme Court ruled
that three years was not unreasonable.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us say that somebody was born before 1973, so he is
covered by the provision that he must elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of 21.
FR. BERNAS: Born under the 1935 Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes under the 1935 Constitution. Let us say that this man has
not elected Philippine citizenship but all of a sudden he wants to be a
candidate for Congress. The law says he must be at least 25 years of age.
So, six months before reaching the age of 25 he decides to elect Philippine
citizenship; that is, three-and-a-half years after he reached the age of
majority. Would he still be allowed to elect Philippine citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: It would depend on the circumstances; it would depend on the
reasons why he did not make the election earlier. If all along he knew that he
had to make an election and he did not, then three years would be
considered unreasonable. As I said, in the case which I cited, the Supreme
Court considered three years reasonable because the person thought he did
not have to elect and, second, the person thought he was a Filipino all along
and under that belief he served in the Armed Forces.
As with everything in law, the word reasonable is something that is rather
flexible. We have to examine the factual circumstances of every case to
determine whether indeed in this particular case three years would be
reasonable or unreasonable. In some instances, one year may be reasonable
or already unreasonable, depending on the circumstances.
MR. RODRIGO: But this provision becomes very, very important because his
election of Philippine citizenship makes him not only a Filipino citizen but a
natural-born Filipino citizen, entitling him to run for Congress, to be a Justice
of the Supreme Court . . .
FR. BERNAS: Correct. We are quite aware of that, and for that reason we will
leave to the body whether to approve that proviso on Section 4.
MR. RODRIGO: I think there is a good basis for the proviso, because it strikes
me as unfair that the Filipino who was born a day before January 17, 1973
cannot be a Filipino citizen or a natural-born Filipino citizen, while another
one born the day after is a natural-born citizen.
FR. BERNAS: It could only be an hour later.
MR. RODRIGO: An hour later, yes. For example, One born at 11:30 p.m. of the
previous day, and another at 12:10 a.m. of the succeeding day.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: But the thing is, since they are given the rights of naturalborn citizens, does the Gentleman not think we should be more specific on
when, within what time, they should elect Philippine citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: I am sure the Committee will entertain concrete proposals along
that line.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The Vice-President, Commissioner
Padilla, is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I notice that we are referring to Proposed Resolution No. 7, as modified by
Committee Report No. 4.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: It is quite difficult to be going from one page to another. For
example, the resolution says: Delete Section 2, and the report says, Insert
this section.
For immediate reference, why can we not place these different sections
under Citizenship on a more or less final form, as recommended by the
Committee? The insertion recommended by the Committee should be
incorporated in capital letters and the old provision that is intended to be
deleted may be enclosed in parentheses. That was a practice in the Senate
and in the Congress. That would make it easier, I think, for all the Members
of this Commission.
FR. BERNAS: I recognize that it could have been done better that way, but I
think the provision is sufficiently short so that it is possible to make
references.
MR. PADILLA: In Commonwealth Act No. 63 How Citizenship May be Lost
Section I provides for seven causes, and the last one, before subsequent
amendments, reads:
In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the
law in force in her husbands country, she acquires his nationality.
So, a Filipino citizen who marries a foreigner whose countrys law provides
that she acquire her husbands nationality, loses her Filipino citizenship and
acquires the citizenship of her husband.
FC. BERNAS: That was the law prior to January 17, 1973.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Commonwealth Act No. 63 is an old law. The same CA No.
63 provides for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship it may be lost or
reacquired in the manner provided by law. I suppose that said law has
reference to Commonwealth Act No. 63.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, but that Commonwealth Act was repealed on January 17,
1973 by Section 2.
MR. PADILLA: I will go to that later on. The proposed replacement of Section 2
reads: CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES WHO MARRY ALIENS SHALL RETAIN
THEIR CITIZENSHIP, UNLESS BY THEIR ACT OR OMISSION THEY ARE DEEMED,
UNDER THE LAW, TO HAVE RENOUNCED THEIR CITIZENSHIP.
It again makes reference to the law. According to Commonwealth Act No. 63,
one of the grounds for losing a citizenship is by express renunciation of
citizenship.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: Of course, it also provides for other acts, like subscribing to the
oath of allegiance to support a foreign government, rendering service or
accepting commission from a foreign country, etc. There are seven causes,
including a cancellation of certificate of naturalization or having been
declared a deserter in the Philippine Armed Forces.
There is no other law that I know that mentions renunciation except this
provision by express renunciation of citizenship? in paragraph 2, Section I
of Commonwealth Act No. 63. So that when the law mentions express
renunciation and at the same time renounced is mentioned by their act
of omission, they are not very clear, if not confusing. Does not the
Gentleman feel that we should clarify this? We do not know exactly what law
it is referring to except Commonwealth Act No. 63.
FR. BERNAS: My understanding of this provision as it has existed since 1973
is that the use of the word renounced in Section 2 is not qualified by the
adjective express. In other words, what this means is that the word
renounced under Section 2 could either be express or implied.
Paragraph 1 of the section cited by the Vice-President from Commonwealth
Act No. 63 speaks of express renunciation. But I think the other sections
can be interpreted as implied renunciation. And that is covered by the
word renounced in Section 2, which is not qualified by the adjective
express.
MR. PADILLA: Why do we not make it clearer by just saying express or
implied renunciation under the law?
FR. BERNAS: I would be willing to entertain such amendment at the proper
time.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Commissioner Bernas.
The last portion of the committee report says:
. . . That those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section 1,
Paragraph 3 above shall also be deemed natural-born citizens.
I agree to consider as natural-born citizens children whose fathers and
mothers are citizens. But when the word elect in paragraph 3, Section I, is
repeated in the proviso of the last section, that election is provided in
Commonwealth Act No. 625. Now, as I mentioned in my remark before, it
would be a little strange if we place in paragraph 3 of Section 1, the word
elect and again repeat it in the last paragraph or last proviso of Section 4.
The 1973 Constitution does not provide for election because the 1971
Constitutional Convention merged Sections 2 and 3 of the 1935 Constitution
into one provision: Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines.
I expressed the view before that I was subscribing to the view of
Commissioner Concepcion, that probably it would be better to retain the two
classifications in the 1935 Constitution. Would the Gentleman have serious or
underlying objections?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely, the Committee subscribes to the change made by the
1973 Constitution that in order for a child to be a Filipino, it is not necessary
that both the father and the mother be Filipino. It is enough that the. mother
be a Filipino. And this report reflects our subscription to the change made in
1973.
MR. PADILLA: With due respect, we feel that there is a real distinction
between a child born of a Filipino father married to an alien and a child born
of a Filipino mother with a foreigner husband.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee will entertain an amendment which seeks to
revert to the 1935 rule.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you very much.
I was going to suggest, if I may, just for the sake of further consideration, to
add the phrase AND ARE BORN IN THE PHILIPPINES immediately after the
phrase citizens of the Philippines in paragraph 4, Section 1 of the 1935
Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: That matter can also be taken up in the period of amendments.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you very much.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you very much.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The Assistant Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. CALDERON: I move that the Chair recognize Commissioner Guingona,
and after Commissioner Guingona, Commissioner Ople; and with your kind
indulgence, I would like to move for adjournment after Commissioner
Concepcion is recognized. So, it will be Commissioners Guingona, Ople,
Concepcion, after which it is my intention to make a motion for adjournment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Thank you, Mr. Assistant Floor
Leader.
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I just have one question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The intention is also noted.
oath of allegiance to a foreign government maybe just to enter into the spirit
of the occasion when the anniversary of the Sun Yat-Sen Republic is
commemorated. And so, I have detected a genuine and deep concern about
double citizenship, with its attendant risk of double allegiance which is
repugnant to our sovereignty and national security. I appreciate what the
Committee said that this could be left to the determination of a future
legislature. But considering the scale of the problem, the real impact on the
security of this country, arising from, let us say, potentially great numbers of
double citizens professing double allegiance, will the Committee entertain a
proposed amendment at the proper time that will prohibit, in effect, or
regulate double citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: While the Committee prefers to leave this matter to ordinary
legislation, should the body prefer to settle the question on dual citizenship
in the Constitution itself, I am, sure the Committee will not be unduly
dismayed by that.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The Assistant Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. CALDERON: I move that Commissioner Concepcion be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Concepcion is
recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: Commissioner Bernas, has the Committee, in adopting its
report, considered the question of whether or not the Constitutional
Commission is likely to adopt the nationalistic spirit of the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions in connection with the conservation and utilization of our
natural resources and the operation of public utilities? On the surface, there
might seem to be no connection between citizenship and the conservation of
natural resources and the operation of public utilities. However, the
delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1935 felt that aliens have
consistently expanded their influence over our finances. Many of these aliens
were old residents of the Philippines but they did not feel inclined to apply for
naturalization.
It is significant that among those who favor reversion to the policy of the
1935 Constitution are two Commissioners in this Assembly, Commissioner
Padilla, as former Solicitor General and myself, who as former members of
the Bureau of Justice, have handled hundreds of naturalization cases. Beyond
doubt, the only motive of the applicants for naturalization is the opportunity
FR. BERNAS: I quite agree, but again, if there was liberalization there, it was
not effected by the Constitution.
MR. CONCEPCION: But just the same, liberalization effects the conservation
of natural resources.
FR. BERNAS: I have no disagreement with that. The only thing I am
disagreeing with is that the liberalization was affected by the Constitution. It
was not. It was affected by the liberal policies of Marcos in the naturalization
law but not by the Constitution.
MR. CONCEPCION: I beg the Gentlemans attention to the fact that the 1973
Constitution was made by Marcos. Even in 1971, it had been said that there
was a strong lobby for the liberalization of the provisions of the Constitution
relative to citizenship. I would suggest consideration of the fact that there is
a great likelihood that the Commission may wish to adopt the policy, the
restrictive policy, in the exploitation and utilization of natural resources as
well as in the operation of public utilities.
The effect of the different constitutions, particularly the 1973 Constitution, is
to allow more people to become or to claim Philippine citizenship without
filing applications for naturalization. Even the procedure for the acquisition of
citizenship by naturalization had been amplified, I mean, liberalized. I would
suggest the importance of our constitution stating something to indicate our
policy on the matter of citizenship and that we now adopt a more restrictive
policy. It is bad enough that our old policy thereon had adverse effects. It
would be worse to continue adhering to that policy.
On paper we may have appeared to be nationalistic. In actual practice,
however, we really are not. The assembly may have had the excuse that the
Constitution had imposed no explicit restrictions, so we should leave no
doubts that hereafter we are opposed to any form of liberalization. Of course
the members of the assembly know the reason better than I do, but on that
basis, I would suggest consideration of the effect of the proposal of the
Committee upon the provisions on the enjoyment of our natural resources
and the operation of public utilities. We should maintain the present
safeguards regarding said resources and public utilities. Moreover, we must
control the immigration of foreigners, considering our big population, which
admittedly demands control.
Those who advocate the proposed constitutional amendment argue that the
same has no adverse effects upon us. The fact is that those who were
naturalized by election, upon reaching the age of majority, shall be
considered as natural-born citizens. This is one form of liberalization of the
pertinent provision. If we adopt the amendments proposed by the
Committee, a child born an alien can eventually become President of the
R.C.C. NO. 18
Thursday, June 26, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:19 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. GASCON: Isang Pagbasa mula sa Ebanghelyo ni San Lukas:
At sinabi ni Maria:
Ang puso koy nagpupuri sa Panginoon at nagagalak ang aking espiritu dahil
sa Diyos na aking tagapagligtas sapagkat nilingap Niya ang Kaniyang abang
alipin, at mula ngayon, ako ay tatawaging mapalad ng lahat ng saling lahi.
Dahil sa mga dakilang bagay na ginawa sa akin ng Maykapangyarihan, banal
ang Kaniyang pangalan. Kinahahabagan Niya ang mga may takot sa Kaniya
sa lahat ng saling lahi. Ipinakita Niya ang lakas ng Kaniyang mga bisig;
ipinangalat Niya ang mga palalo ang isipan; ibinagsak Niya ang mga hari
mula sa kanilang trono at itinaas ang mga nasa abang kalagayan; binusog
Niya ang mabubuting bagay, ang mga nagugutom at pinalayas Niya nang
wala ni anuman ang mayayaman; tinulungan Niya ang Kaniyang bayang
Israel bilang pagtupad sa pangako Nya sa ating mga magulang, kay
Abraham at sa Kaniyang saling lahi magpakailan man.
Amang mapagmahal at mapagpalaya, sa araw na ito ay iniaalay namin ang
aming sarili, ang aming kahinaan at kalakasan. Gabayan Mo kami sa aming
pagkukulang at tulungan Mo kami upang patuloy naming isulong ang
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
MR. CALDERON: I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of
the previous session and that we approve the same.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolutions on First
Reading and Communications, the President making the corresponding
references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 274; entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SECTIONS
THREE AND FOUR, ARTICLE FOUR, OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION WITH
MODIFICATION TO MAKE THE PROTECTION MORE EFFECTIVE.
Introduced by Hon. Treas.
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and
Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 275, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SECTION
ELEVEN, PARAGRAPH (1), ARTICLE X OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION WITH
MODIFICATIONS AND WITH AN ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPH TO FURTHER
STRENGTHEN THE COMPULSORY CHARACTER OF SAID PROVISION.
Introduced by Hon. Treas, Colayco, Romulo and Suarez.
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
Proposed Resolution No. 276, entitled:
Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on May 12, 1981 and requesting
that the same be made part of the records of the Constitutional Commission.
(Communication No. 56 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Marino M. Mena, College of Engineering, University of the
Philippines, proposing provisions on science and technology, education, and
environment.
(Communication No. 57 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Communication from the Honorable Neptali A. Gonzalez, referring a paper of
Mr. Nicolas A. Gerochi, Jr., Regional Trial Court Judge, Makati, Metro Manila,
with a specific recommendation for a bicameral legislature.
(Communication No. 58 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Legislative.
Letter from the Samahan sa Kultura at Sining signed by Ms. Julie Borromeo,
transmitting a proposal for a Ministry of Culture.
(Communication No. 59 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Vicente Bengzon, Jr., c/o Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila,
proposing that judicial funds be placed under the supervision and control of
the Supreme Court to ensure the independence of the Judiciary.
(Communication No. 60 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
Letter from Mr. Felino C.T. Leon of Potrero, Malabon, Metro Manila, submitting
a paper on a proposed form of government, its structure and process.
(Communication No. 61 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Napoleon B. Sayson of 2428 Dapdap St., Paraaque, Metro
Manila, suggesting, among others, a speedy judicial process and a vicepresident each for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
(Communication No. 62 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: I move that Assistant Floor Leader Ahmad Domocao Alonto
be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Assistant Floor Leader Alonto is recognized.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, thank you for the recognition. I stand here
not as Assistant Floor Leader but I am here, Madam President, to reiterate
my request, dated June 24, 1986, addressed to the President of the
Commission.
This is regarding the lecture of the late martyr Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr.
delivered on May 12, 1981 at the King Abdul Aziz University Science
Auditorium, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, entitled: The Historical
Background of the Moro Problem in the Southern Philippines.
I believe, Madam President, that this lecture of former Senator Aquino is not
only an important historical document, but also a pronouncement which
embodies an essential formula for the solution of one of the most persistent
problems in this country. I beg to request that the same be made part of the
record of this Constitutional Commission.* Also, I move that this be
immediately reproduced and distributed to the Members of this Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. For the information of Commissioner Alonto, his
communication denominated as Communication No. 56 in our Order of
Business today has been referred to the Committee on Human Resources.
Thank you.
MR. ALONTO: Yes, Madam President, I am very grateful for referring it to this
Committee, but my purpose in requesting that the lecture be reproduced and
distributed to the Members of the Commission is that it would serve us in
getting a formula to be embodied in the Constitution which could solve the
problem persisting in our country.
our plenary sessions to give its report of the public hearings in the provinces,
subject to questions by their fellow Commissioners.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion? (Silence) The Chair
hears none, the motion is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
MR. OPLE: I second the motion.
However, will Commissioner Sarmiento entertain a minor amendment
without prejudice to the written ; reports of the team.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople, the motion has already been approved.
Is there any reconsideration then of the approval so that this amendment
can come in?
MR. OPLE: This is not such a critical amendment, but if it is understood that
this is embraced within the meaning of the motion of Commissioner
Sarmiento, I will not disturb the prior approval, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Considering that there is still five minutes left from
Commissioner Sarmientos time, I wonder if he would be willing to yield to a
few questions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Gladly, Commissioner Maambong.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong may proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: Commissioner Sarmiento mentioned a situation wherein
the integrity of the Constitutional Commission has been slandered or
assailed. Would the Commissioner give some recommendations as to how we
can counter this kind of slanderous reports?
MR. SARMIENTO: I suggest that the Committee on Public Relations make
representations with the authors of these newspaper items. We were given a
list of newspapermen just this afternoon. So, I think that Committee should
make representations with those newsmen about the reports that should be
published in the papers.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is just for the record. Will the Commissioner put in the
record the names of the newspapers which published the subject matter of
the Commissioners speech?
MR. SARMIENTO: I refer to the Manila Bulletin, dated June 23, 1986 and June
25, 1986.
MR. MAAMBONG: Is that the only paper?
MR. SARMIENTO: That is the only paper I referred to in my speech this
afternoon.
MR. MAAMBONG: Actually, I do not want to dignify that report which I have
also read. But considering that the Commissioner has already opened up the
subject, I just want to inform the body that I have also in my news file a
report stating that what we are doing here is just a palabas and that a draft
of the Constitution has actually been prepared. I consider that a very serious
accusation, and I also feel that if it were not for the time limitation, I would
also speak on a matter of collective and personal privilege. Does the
Commissioner have any further recommendations aside from calling the
attention of our Committee on Public Relations?
MR. SARMIENTO: Or maybe we can ask the reporter to make a public apology
for his kind of reporting.
MR. MAAMBONG: That would be all, Madam President; thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I think we are overly sensitive to the reports
we read every now and then. It is not uncommon anymore to read news
items about the Con-Com that are simply not true and we are spending a lot
of time trying to get the entire Commission to correct whatever
misinformation has been written about us. Probably, it will be better to just
call the attention of our Committee that has something to do with this to
make the necessary correction instead of us bringing the matter before the
entire body everytime there is an inaccurate news article. This is just a
suggestion, Madam President.
Going over the final schedules of the public hearings outside of Metro Manila
for the periods June 21 to July 13, we note the very apparent inadequacy of
such public hearings relative to our collective desire to adequately feel the
public pulse. In saying this, I do not intend to lay any blame on the planners
of the public hearings I believe they have done an excellent work,
considering the time and other constraints. However, the schedules show
that we have only allowed one site for one province. Examples are Malolos
for Bulacan, Lipa City for Batangas, and so forth, and that only two-thirds of
all the provinces have been covered. The advantages of the so-called minireferenda would be, among others: The organizers need not wait for week
ends, which we have to do because we work here from Mondays to Fridays.
They need not hold their sessions the whole day. They can hold these in the
evenings. There will be no expenses as far as the Commission is concerned.
The participants who are in the locality could perhaps even walk to the site
of the session, and the people need not talk to some Commissioners who
may not even understand their dialects.
And so, Madam President, I would like to reiterate the motion that I had
earlier presented, but which I have to withdraw because, as correctly pointed
out at that time, the motion was untimely presented. There was an untimely
presentation because we had not yet started our deliberations on public
hearings.
May I now present my motion, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. GUINGONA: I move that the Commission, thru the honorable President,
solicit the assistance and cooperation of prestigious civic, professional,
religious and responsible organizations with nationwide network such as the
Rotary, the Jaycees, the Lions, the National Press Club, either by itself or thru
its provincial contacts, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other
professional organizations like labor, students, faculty, religious groups and
others to appeal to their clubs and local units to conduct minireferenda,
particularly outside of Metro Manila, within two weeks and to submit to this
Commission summarized reports on constitutional proposals gathered during
such minireferenda on or before July 12, 1986; and that a special ad hoc
committee composed of Members of this Commission be created by the
honorable President with the task of classifying, collating, and summarizing
the reports received and to present its report either in plenary session or in
writing on July 21.
Thank you, Madam President.
has considered the same and has the honor to report them back to the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommendation that attached
Proposed Resolution No. 263, prepared by the Committee, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
NATIONAL TERRITORY,
be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 6, 27, 136 and 141
with Honorable Davide, Jr., Nolledo, Tingson, Rosales, Aquino, Rosario Braid,
Quesada and Villegas as authors.
(Sgd.) Hon. Decoroso R. Rosales
Chairman
Committee on Preamble, National Territory
and Declaration of Principles
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 263
(Substitute Resolution)
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
NATIONAL TERRITORY
Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Commission in
session assembled:
To incorporate in the new Constitution the following provision:
ARTICLE I
THE NATIONAL TERRITORY
SECTION 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with
all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories
belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title, including the
territorial sea, the air space, the sub- soil, the sea-bed, the insular shelves,
and the other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction. The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines. Sovereignty or jurisdiction of the
Philippines shall also extend to straits connecting these waters with the
economic zone provided for in the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The definition ends there. The above definitions Madam President and my
beloved colleagues in this Commission, was actually an amended provision
on national territory as found in the 1935 Constitution. In this old definition,
our national territory comprised the following: 1) all territories ceded to the
United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and
Spain on December 10, 1898; 2) all islands embraced in the treaty concluded
in Washington between the United States and Spain on December 7, 1900,
and these were: Cagayan, Sulu and the Sibutu groups which were omitted in
the Treaty of Paris; 3) all islands embraced in the treaty concluded between
the United States and Great Britain on January 2, 1930, and these were: the
Turtle Islands and the Mangsee Islands; and 4) all other territories over which
the present government of the Philippines exercises jurisdiction.
The 1973 definition of our national territory, Madam President, adopted in
toto by the Committee with addition, contains the following: 1) reference of
the Philippine archipelago as comprising the national territory, and the word
archipelago was used to project the archipelagic principle; 2) reference to
specific areas suggestive of the air and undersea world within the jurisdiction
and sovereignty of the Philippines. Thus, the use of the words territorial sea,
air space, subsoil, sea-bed, insular shelves, and other submarine areas; and
3) the statement that all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by
historic right or legal title. So, we did not refer anymore to the Treaty of Paris,
the Treaty in Washington, etc., in the 1973 or 1986 definition.
The Philippines, Madam President, is justifiably jealous of its waters. We,
have fought for the adoption of the archipelagic principle in various
conferences on the Law of the Sea, and for many years this principle has met
serious resistance from the world powers particularly Japan and even the
United States. The previous conferences resulted in a stalemate. Our fight for
this principle culminated in the Convention on the Law of the Sea signed at
Jamaica on December 10, 1982.
With the permission of my beloved colleagues, I would like to underscore the
importance of the sea to mankind. I quote the observations of former Foreign
Minister of Singapore, Sinnathamby Rajaratnam. He said:
Undoubtedly, the sea may be tomorrows economic frontier and a possible
source for as many conflicts as the up of the earths surface generated since
mankinds history. Hitherto, the ocean has remained for the most part a nomans-land; and, therefore, all-mens-land simply because mankind had not
the means to effectively seize and occupy the sea. Today, many nations have
the means or think they have. Mankind is turning towards the sea again to
possibly reproduce all the foolishness and madness entailed in curbing up
the land. The trade routes that link nations are still primarily by sea. Marine
transport accounts for 78 percent of the physical volume of foreign trade and
68 percent of the freight in terms of cost. Sea transport is still the cheapest
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to say that these were the three territories
mentioned by Delegate Quintero in our committee hearings.
MR. OPLE: Yes. And since 1973, the situation with respect to our territory and
our claims has been dynamically developing. The Commissioner is
undoubtedly aware of what happened in 1977 in Kuala Lumpur during the
summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
MR. NOLLEDO: Bangkok and London.
MR. OPLE: I am referring to the 1977 ASEAN Summit Meeting.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: At that time, if my memory does not fail me, the distinguished
colleague of ours now present in this Commission was the Ambassador to
Malaysia. And by nodding his head ever so slightly, Commissioner Abubakar
has confirmed that. And in that summit of the ASEAN, the Philippine
government, speaking thru the incumbent President then, formally
announced to the other heads of state then assembled in Kuala Lumpur and
to the world the relinquishment of the Sabah claim.
MR. NOLLEDO: I am aware of that.
MR. OPLE: And is the Commissioner aware that the reason for that action
taken by the then President of the Philippines was based on the attainment
of a consensus in that government over time? I said over time because
three Ministers of Foreign Affairs had recommended this General Carlos P.
Romulo, the most recent . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: The most notable.
M,R. OPLE: The sponsor is probably right although Ambassador Pelaez may
dispute that. A whole series of foreign ministers of the Philippines from
Pelaez to Tolentino to Romulo or is that the wrong sequence had
recommended that the Philippine government renounce the Sabah, claim
because it had become self-defeating in terms of our national objectives. I
have dared to rephrase the arguments I heard from them more recently by
saying that the claim has turned into a paradox in the sense that if we
wanted to benefit from a close association with Sabah and with Malaysia, if
that is a goal because there are great complementarities in labor and trade
between the Philippines and that country, then, only the claim stands in the
way to having that objective realized.
Of course, I will not rehash the legal arguments. We subscribed to selfdetermination as an important leader in the formation of the UN Declaration
negotiation. So the rights of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu should never be
compromised.
MR. NOLLEDO: If Commissioner Ople does not mind, I filed a resolution
authorizing the President of the Philippines, being the officer-in-charge of the
conduct of foreign relations, to resolve the Sabah issue, and that whatever
resolution the President may arrive at should be given full respect.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but this is in relation to the interpretation and determination
of the intent of the framer, beginning with the intent of the Committee,
concerning the scope of the words historic right or legal title in the
territorial provision. If this arises from the Commissions interpretation of the
meaning of the phrase, then I will be wholeheartedly in support of it, leaving
the determination of the steps to be taken in this regard to the hands of the
Executive Department the President of the Philippines, in particular, who is
responsible for foreign policy.
MR. NOLLEDO: And if Commissioner Ople has read the Explanatory Note to
my resolution, he will be happy to note that the words indicate a suggestion
to the President to drop the Sabah claim.
MR. OPLE: I was not aware of that, but I certainly look forward with relish to
being able to see it after this interpellation.
I said that was going to be my last question, but I am sorry I have to refer to
another territory which we now consider an organic part of the Philippine
territory I refer to the Kalayaan Islands.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Freedomland.
MR. OPLE: Technically speaking and I think the Bureau of Geodetic Survey
must have informed the Committee the present official name of this chain
of islands belonging to the Republic of the Philippines is the Kalayaan Islands.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is correct.
M,R. OPLE: This is, of course, still misrepresented in some international maps
as part of the Spratley Archipelago, which, of course, is very hotly disputed
by several powers, including . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: South Vietnam.
MR. OPLE: There is no longer a South Vietnam. Vietnam . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, the former South Vietnam.
MR. OPLE: Yes. Vietnam, China in Peking, and the Republic of China in Taiwan.
MR. NOLLEDO: Kampuchea also?
MR. OPLE: Of course, the Commissioner is aware that right there in the
Kalayaan Islands we are cheek to jowl with an island garrisoned by
Vietnamese troops and another island called Itu Abba, a bigger island,
garrisoned by troops of the Republic of China in Taiwan.
The Commissioner undoubtedly read a newspaper report about a year ago,
when a Philippine Air Force plane must have been a Gung Ho pilot flew
very low and buzzed the Vietnamese garrison. It was reported that the
garrison fired a few shots at the Philippine Air Force plane, just to indicate
the tensions existing in that part of the South China Sea where we have a
group of five islands called Kalayaan, but which are still contested as part of
the Spratleys by China, Taiwan and Vietnam.
The Commissioner undoubtedly is aware that we
governments already existing in the Kalayaan Islands.
have
barangay
The Sabah territory was, turned over to a British commercial company whose
right over the territory was, in turn, transferred to the British government.
There was for a while a certain misunderstanding as to the true nature of this
transfer, as well as the claim of the Philippines, not of its own right but of the
right of the Sultan of Sulu to lease the territory of Sabah to two British
merchants. As a result of this lease, the British acquired the right to develop
the territory and lorded over it. But the Sultan of Sulu signed the Lease
Contract which was a perpetual lease in the interpretation of both the
British and the Sultan of Sulu was practically a secession of the territory to
the British North Borneo government from which the British Government
acquired the right. As a result of these negotiations and claim of the
Philippines, friction arose between the government of Sabah and the Philippine government. Even the people of Sabah a portion of which are
Filipinos did not favor the issue of the Philippines claiming the territory.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like Commissioner Abubakar to know that a perpetual
lease was entered into through the intercession of two British, Gustavus
Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent, and there would have been no problem
if the rental had been paid continuously.
When Sabah was transferred to the U.S. government, the perpetual lease
was questioned by the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu because the British
government stopped paying the rent. That is why they felt aggrieved and
considered the stoppage of payment of rent a violation of the contract,
because of which they felt that the contract was rescinded.
I would like the Commissioner also to know that the Philippine government
laid their claim upon Sabah under the doctrine of imperium the theory
derived from the principle of sovereignty. The Philippine government has no
property rights over Sabah, and because the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu are
Filipino citizens, the government protects their rights, specifically their
property rights or claims over Sabah.
MR. ABUBAKAR: I understand that very clearly. It is not only a question of
property right, but sovereignty over Sabah as well.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is correct.
MR. ABUBAKAR: But in the treaty by which this transfer was effected,
sovereignty, as well as the physical right to the territory of Sabah, was
transferred by the Sultan of Sulu to the British government. That position
rather weakened the claim of the Philippines over the territory. And when the
claim was pushed through, we realized then that our position was not as
strong as we had conceived it.
In return, the heirs to the Sultanate of Sulu recognized that what has been
transferred was not only the physical possession over Sabah but also the
right of sovereignty over it. Because of that concept, we feel that our right to
push the claim and acquire sovereignty over Sabah is weak and, therefore,
we allow the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu to continue the negotiation with
respect to property rights so as to enable them to ask for an increase in the
yearly rental for which Sabah was acquired with the agreement of Overbeck
and the Sultan of Sulu.
That is settled. That is why we have not pursued our claim. I was one of
those involved in the acquisition of Sabah. Angking and Sangkalang were my
great grandfathers. They were the ones who acquired Sabah, not the
Sultanate of Sulu.
MR. NOLLEDO: When Macapagal filed a claim of the Philippines over Sabah,
the 1973 Constitution, of course, was not yet existing. During the Bangkok
Conference and the London Conference, the Philippine government was
embarrassed because they said there was no indication whatsoever to
support such claim.
The definition of the territory as appearing in the 1935 Constitution will
support the Commissioners claim and that was the reason why we discussed
in the Committee on National Territory the 1971 Constitutional Conventions
need to put the words historic right or legal title in order to constitute a
basis for negotiation over the Sabah claim.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes. Even if this additional claim of historic right will lead to
negotiation, the present position of the Philippine government has changed.
In order to maintain the cordial relation between Sabah and Southern
Philippines and for other reasons, we have already agreed, I think by our
silence and by our acceptance, that we are not pursuing the claim and that
Sabah is, as embodied in the territorial Constitution of Malaysia, a part of
Malaysia and not the Philippines.
MR. NOLLEDO: I find very good friends of Malaysia in this Commission.
MR. ABUBAKAR: I regret that the development towards this end has not only
sort of weakened the Philippine claim but affected the right of the heirs of
the Sultan of Sulu towards claiming possession of this territory.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
the Sabah claim altogether is the biggest single obstacle to the achievement
of a harmonious and mutually beneficial relationship between the people of
Malaysia and ours. The trade between our Filipino brothers in the South and
the people of Borneo, once a voluminous, brisk and profitable undertaking,
has slumped over the years by reason of this continuing and festering
irritant. By a constitutional act, we have placed those regions on a shaky
footing and destabilized its once sanguine prospects of regional prosperity.
By undermining that trade route, so traditional and basic to the economic
and social stability of our southern provinces, we have likewise put in
question our ability in the future to hold those provinces together under our
government.
Madam President, it has become distinctly clear that we are being drawn by
our instincts to survive and to prosper into regional cooperation and into the
world of nations. Whereas in the past our world revolved merely around the
special relationship that we had enjoyed with the United States of America,
the imperatives now should compel us not only to look farther, but also
nearer. Our future is bound irrevocably with the collective prospects of the
nations in Southeast Asia. These existing relationships, however, demand of
us a greater sensitivity to the rights and feelings of neighboring countries.
When we became a part of the larger community of nations, the inevitable
result had to be that our rights must be bent to conform with the generally
accepted principles of international law.
Thus we say in Section 3, Article II of our 1973 Constitution:
The Philippines . . . adopts the generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Madam President and colleagues, I submit that the right to self-determination
by a people is an honored principle of international law. Upon this principle
we have based our own sovereign will to establish a new government. Based
on this same principle, the 64 dollar question, however, is this: Do the people
of Sabah have the right to self-determination? Granting the Sultan of Sulu
has a valid legal claim to that territory, do the people of Sabah by living in
that territory since time out of mind acquire a right to that territory superior
even to the claims of the Sulu Sultan?
Madam President, I submit that the land itself cannot supersede the right of
any people to self-determination. For, indeed, if the right to the ownership of
land is supreme over peoples rights to self-government, then I should say
that even land reform in the Philippines would be impossible to implement.
But the moral behind land reform precisely is the belief that the people are
more important than the land. In biblical terms, we say that the sabbath was
made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Land was created for man and
not the reverse. The people of Sabah have lived and died in Sabah since time
immemorial antedating by a long and undeterminable period the claims of
the Sultan of Sulu. It seems but commonsensical that where their destiny
was concerned, they should have the right to determine it for themselves,
and determine it they did. In 1963 when the British were proposing to launch
the Federation of Malaysia, a United Nations Mission visited Sabah to
determine the peoples opinion there. Over the mild protest of the Filipino
observers, the mission determined that the people of Sabah wanted to form
part of the presumptive federation.
Madam President, how can this nation in conscience claim ownership over a
piece of land that it has never effectively occupied and governed at any time
in history, from the time it was ceded by the Sultan of Brunei to the Sultan of
Sulu some 280 years ago?
My colleagues, our own quest for independence spanning centuries in time
was never based on any legal right or title over the islands of our beloved
country. This we did not have. Rather, our quest was based upon what we
have long perceived to be our national identity, a nationhood that we held to
be superior to the claims of foreigners. We were willing to fight for this right,
and we did fight against three waves of imperial powers. There is absolutely
no reason for us to believe that the people of Sabah do not feel a
nationalistic sentiment. For us to override their sentiment is to compel our
people to commit a wrong against which they have struggled. Must this
nation, first in Asia to revolt against colonialism, perpetuate a colonial policy
against an unwilling neighbor?
Our heroes in the past did not spill their blood for Sabah. The sad muses did
not visit our cantors of liberation to sing the plaintive song for the freedom of
Sabah. Sabah is alien to our national consciousness, a land beyond the
compass of our national soul. By giving up Sabah, we do not lose so much of
a legal claim as we gain a friend: the good people of Malaysia.
Thank you, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. I would like to ask
Commissioner Tingson if that was another sponsorship speech and we are
now through with the sponsorship speech of our Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: I am through with my sponsorship speech. I think the period
of interpellation is still going on.
MS. QUESADA: Does Commissioner Nolledo adopt the position just expressed
by Commissioner Tingson?
MR. NOLLEDO: I said to Commissioner Ople that I filed a resolution
authorizing the President of the Philippines to resolve the Sabah issue. I am
not in favor of the immediate dropping of the Sabah claim. Let us rely on the
President because her office is in charge of the conduct of foreign relations.
So I do not necessarily adopt the views of Commissioner Tingson.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, because the position of the
member as I recall was that we were not
claim, and that we were going to retain just the
We did not discuss at all this particular position
our Committee deliberations.
Committee of which I am a
going to give up the Sabah
historic and legal right to it.
of Commissioner Tingson in
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Madam President. I would like to ask the
distinguished sponsor a few clarificatory questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo may yield, if he so desires.
MR. NOLLEDO: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I recall very vividly that during the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, upon motion of then Delegate Azcuna, now Commissioner
Azcuna, the phrase used in the Article on National Territory was continental
shelves and not insular shelves. But after going through the process of
styling, I suddenly noticed that instead of continental shelves, we are
proposing insular shelves. Now, being a distinguished law professor and
author of law books, I think Commissioner Nolledo might be able to give us a
free lecture on what could be the difference between continental shelf and
insular shelf. I really do not know.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a technical question but I will attempt to explain. Is
Commissioner de los Reyes referring to submarine areas?
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, I am referring to this provision that among those
included within our territory are the insular shelves. But as I said, as I recall
it and I think Commissioner Azcuna will bear me out the original phrase
used was continental shelves. I am just wondering whether there is a
difference between the two terms.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would say so, because the term insular shelves necessarily
covers continental shelves. A continental shelf is only one of the
manifestations of insular shelves. I think the simplest explanation is: a
continental shelf is a certain area or zone coming from or adjacent to an
island, going downward with marked increased slope to greater depth zone
and whose elongation is unaltered like the doctrine of proximate cause,
where economic exploitation will be permitted on the part of the state, from
where the continental shelf begins. Continental shelf is a submerged portion
of an island.
MR. DE LOS REYES: How about insular shelves?
MR. NOLLEDO: The term insular shelf necessarily covers continental
shelf. Insular shelves are not elongated and there are some irregular areas
not similar to those of continental shelves. That is what I under- stand.
The Commissioners question, however, does now, in any way, affect the
substance of the definition. As he said, I should give this body a free lecture,
but this matter is beyond my competence. So, I am stating the concept as a
layman.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Suppose we exclude the words including the territorial
sea, the air space, the subsoil, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, would that,
in any way, diminish the territory of our country?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think so, because when we say insular shelves . .
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, I am referring to the territorial sea, the air space, the
subsoil and the sea-bed.
MR. NOLLEDO: What would the Commissioner like to eliminate?
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, I am not asking that we eliminate anything; I was just
thinking, suppose we were to delete the words territorial sea, the air space,
the subsoil, the sea-bed, would that diminish the area of our territory? Or is
it not a part of international law that the air space, the subsoil and the seabed are really parts of the territory of a country?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would think so. I would still insist on my original answer in
view of certain questionable provisions of the Law of the Sea.
MR. DE LOS REYES: What would these be?
MR. NOLLEDO: I cannot specify now. But Commissioner de los Reyes was a
Member of the Batasang Pambansa when that body ratified the Law of the
Sea in 1982. Then MP Tolentino enumerated several reservations or
understandings authorized by a certain section of the Law of the Sea, which
included the definition of national territory as set forth in the 1973
Constitution. Even the meaning of internal waters became nebulous
because the Convention on the Law of the Sea mentioned the term
archipelagic waters. That is the reason why Ambassador Arreglado,
appearing before our Committee, asked us not to refer at all to the 1982 Law
of the Sea because it has many provisions that may prejudice in some way
our Philippine territory.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I took no part in the ratification of that Law of the Sea
when I was a Member of the Batasan.
MR. NOLLEDO: It was ratified by the Batasang Pambansa.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Did Ambassador Arreglado say that there should be no
mention anymore of the Law of the Sea?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: And did the Commissioner agree with the ambassador?
MR. NOLLEDO: We did not fully agree because of the representations made
by Commissioner Davide. That is why we added the last sentence.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes. And I am going to that because I really am not
knowledgeable about the meaning of sovereignty or jurisdiction of the
Philippines.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner can always consult the dictionary.
MR. DE LOS REYES: But it says SOVEREIGNTY OR JURISDICTION OF THE
PHILIPPINES SHALL ALSO EXTEND TO STRAITS CONNECTING THESE EXTENDS
WITH THE ECONOMIC ZONE . . . What is this economic zone referred to? We
want to learn, Madam President, because we have to explain this to the
people.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is a pertinent question.
I would like the Commissioner to know the substantial provisions of the Law
of the Sea which run like this: The exclusive economic zone is an area
beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea and shall not extend beyond 200
nautical miles from the base lines . . . A portion of Article 56 states that the
coastal State has sovereign rights in the exclusive economic zone to explore,
manage and exploit all the natural resources, living and nonliving, of the
waters, the sea-bed and its subsoil. According to Commissioner Davide, this
will expand our territory.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So the purpose of including the last sentence referring to
STRAITS CONNECTING THESE WATERS WITH THE ECONOMIC ZONE is to
expand our territorial jurisdiction?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I see. What will be the effect of this expansion on the
innocent passage of foreign vessels through our waters?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think innocent passage is guaranteed even before the Law of
the Sea was formulated because it does not infringe on any provision of
international law or, perhaps, because of extreme and imperative necessity
to save human lives brought about by un caso fortuito or fortuitous event. It
does not affect. Innocent passage does not cover internal waters. It is
permitted over the territorial sea.
MR. DE LOS REYES: My point is: This refers to the Law of the sea. Is that not
already covered in the Declaration of Principles? Expectedly, we will adopt
international law as part of the law of our country and? therefore, there. is no
more need to state that our sovereignty or jurisdiction shall extend to straits
connecting these waters with the economic zone provided for in the
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Is that not superfluous?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, it is not superfluous. Let me explain. If the Commissioner
would read carefully the technical words of the Law of the Sea, there are
questionable matters; such as, for example, the meaning of internal waters.
According to former Senator Tolentino if the Commissioner does not mind,
I would like to read this to be sure:
Under our Constitution, the waters between and around the islands are
called internal waters. The constitutional internal waters include both the
archipelagic waters and the internal waters under the Convention.
That is why Ambassador Arreglado said that the term archipelagic waters
was recommended very strongly by Indonesia. The archipelagic appearance
of Indonesia is different from that of the Philippines. If we adopt the pertinent
provisions of the Law of the Sea, there is a possibility that innocent passage
may be exercised across our national internal waters because they can be
called archipelagic waters under the Convention. That was the reason
Senator Tolentino had made several reservations, called Understandings,
before the Convention before he signed the Law of the Sea. In fact, there
were eight understandings, and one of them is, and I quote:
Such signing shall not, in any manner, affect the sovereign right of the
Republic of the Philippines as successor of the United States of America
under and arising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United
States of America of December 10, 1898, and the Treaty of Washington
between the United States of America and Great Britain of January 2, 1930.
Such signing shall not, in any manner, impair or prejudice the sovereignty of
the Republic of the Philippines over any territory over which it exercises
sovereign authority, including the Kalayaan Islands and the waters
appurtenant thereto.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I really do not know anything about this Law of the Sea
which Commissioner Nolledo is mentioning. I never participated in the
discussion of the Law of the Sea for it was never discussed during our time.
Frankly, I am more confused now after hearing the Commissioners
explanation.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioners questions brought about the confusion.
That is why the Committee followed partially the recommendation of
Ambassador Arreglado that we should not make any express reference to the
Law of the Sea because there will really be confusion. Thus, in reading the
Law of the Sea, we will have to read also the understandings made by
Senator Tolentino before he signed the Law of the Sea. These understandings
were considered when the Law of the Sea of 1982 was ratified by the
upon
the
MR. DE LOS REYES: We will leave it at that. The definition starts with: The
national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago. According to
Commissioner Nolledo, we use the word archipelago in order to emphasize
the archipelagic theory. Do I get him right?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. That was mentioned in the proceedings of the 1971
Constitutional Convention, if the Commissioner remembers.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, that is correct. I remember that Commissioner
Nolledo was also a Member of the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
In the draft Constitution which was sent by former President Macapagal, the
definition of the national territory starts something like this:
The Philippines comprises the ancestral home of the Filipino people,
composed of all the islands and waters, and all the other territories, . . .
What is the Commissioners reaction to that suggestion from President
Macapagal? Would that, in any way, affect the archipelagic theory as
mentioned?
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily, because the reaction there was given by
Voltaire Garcia. If the Commissioner will remember, he said that by using the
term ancestral home, he is including everything, every island covered by
the Madjapahit Empire, and, therefore, may cover possibly Borneo that
includes Sabah and perhaps a greater portion of Indonesia.
MR. DE LOS REYES: All right. I thank Commissioner Nolledo for his free
lecture, although I must confess that I am really confused.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR RMA: I move for the adjournment of the session until tomorrow at nine
oclock in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine oclock in
the morning.
It was 7:25 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 19
Friday, June 27, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:14 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Serafin V.C. Guingona.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. GUINGONA: Almighty Father, we humbly pray for Your divine guidance so
that we may be able to correctly perceive and discern the sentiments and
desires of our people as to what should be contained in the proposed
Constitution and so that we may conformably and accurately crystallize and
express these sentiments and desires.
Grant us the wisdom so that in our efforts, truth and justice may prevail, the
humility to accept the ideas of others which may conflict with ours, bearing
in mind that we are here to serve the interests of our people, and the
physical endurance to accomplish the many and varied tasks before us.
Help us never to forget to be concerned with the common good, for the
welfare of our people, particularly the poor and the deprived, in this our work
of drafting our peoples constitution, one which would seek to establish in
this fair land a community characterized by moral regeneration, social
progress for all, political stability, economic prosperity, love and concern for
one another.
Grant us to use the responsibility that You have given us to the fullest
advantage of our people and our country. Make us realize fully and well that
Absent
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present *
Present
Absent
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present*
Present*
told them not to advert to the Law of the Sea in their discussions. We have
studies to the effect that the economic zone we seek to protect as part of the
territory of the Philippines and the right to exploit the same need not
necessarily make reference to the Law of the Sea. In a study on this matter,
it was pointed out that without ratifying the Convention, the Philippines could
avail not only of the 12-mile territorial sea and the 200-mile exclusive
economic zone, but also the definition of the continental shelf as binding
rules of international law to which we, after all, had expressly adhered.
As a matter of fact, under Proclamation No. 370 of March 20, 1968, the
Philippines asserted sovereignty over the mineral resources of the
continental shelf, as defined in Article 3 of the Petroleum Act, in accordance
with the Geneva Convention of 1958. Presidential Decree No. 1599
proclaimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone for the Philippines on June
11, 1978, declaring that such a zone is now a recognized principle of
international law. As a matter of fact, Presidential Decree No. 1599 followed
exactly the provisions of the concept of an exclusive economic zone under
the international convention now in question. The United States likewise
proclaimed a 200-mile economic zone without signing the Convention.
So, if the purpose here was to protect Philippine jurisdiction over the waters
coextensive with the economic zone, there would be no need for providing in
the Constitution that this refers to the same as understood in the Convention
on the Law of the Sea because this is already an accepted principle of
international law.
The matter of the territorial sea also bothers me because in the 1973
Constitution, as well as in the proposed resolution, the Philippines asserts
sovereignty by historic right or legal title not only over the land area involved
therein but also over the territorial sea.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I seek recognition?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I really hate to interrupt Commissioner Regalado at this
point, considering that he is giving us so much elucidatory information. But I
must raise, Madam President, a point of parliamentary inquiry, considering
that we are at present in the fourth period of sponsorship and interpellation. I
do not really mind Commissioner Regalado taking the floor, considering the
absence of the sponsor, but I wonder if Commissioner Regalado is a member
of the Committee.
MR. REGALADO: No, I am not. Madam President, this procedure was precisely
suggested by the Floor Leader in the absence of the sponsor whom I
intended to interpellate with clarificatory questions. I wanted to bring these
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
R.C.C. NO. 20
Monday, June 30, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:21 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session:
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Alberto M. K. Jamir.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. JAMIR: Almighty God, we meet in Thy presence seeking divine guidance
that we may fashion a Constitution which will prevent a repetition of the
shameless rape of our country by another Marcos; assure our peoples
freedom from fear of oppression; and vouch-safe for them equal opportunity
in their pursuit of a better tomorrow to lighten the burden of their unceasing
daily toil.
For this awesome task, O Lord, we pray Thee to keep our minds clear, our
hearts pure, and our hands clean and steady, that the product of our labor
may endure for all time and bring to fruition our countrys driving dream of a
higher horizon. Only then may we be truly worthy of Thy benediction: Well
done, good and faithful servants, enter Thou into the Kingdom of Thy Lord.
Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Bacani
Bengzon
Bennagen
Bernas
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Letter from Mr. Francisco O. Javines of 348 Gov. Forbes, Sampaloc, Manila,
enclosing an article proposing provisions on initiative, referendum and recall.
(Communication No. 79 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Legislative.
Letter from Mr. Ruben A. Ferrer of 2251-C Adonis St., Pandacan, Manila,
proposing a manner of ratification of the Constitution.
(Communication No. 80 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Letter from Lingkod-Tao-Kalikasan signed by Sr. Ma. Aida Velasquez, OSB,
requesting the inclusion of provisions that would promote ecological and
environmental consciousness and participation.
(Communication No. 81 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Resolution No. 1 of the Pambansang Konsultasyon ng Maralitang Tagalunsod,
with attachments, urging attention to issues affecting the urban poor.
(Communication No. 82 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter of the Honorable Commissioner Ambrosio Padilla, expressing heartfelt
appreciation for the unanimous adoption by the Constitutional Commission of
Resolution No. 5, entitled:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE PROFOUND CONDOLENCE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION ON THE DEATH OF HONORABLE SABINO
PADILLA, FORMER JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES.
(Communication No. 83 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Archives.
Letter from Mr. Melquiades de la Cruz, Presidential Staff Director, Malacaang
Records Office, transmitting a copy of Executive Order No. 23, dated June 26,
1986, entitled:
AN
ARTICLE
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that the Chairman of the Steering
Committee be recognized on some proposed division of schedule.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Suarez): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
We are now in the period of sponsorship and interpellation on the committee
report on National Territory. I would like to propose to the body that after we
finish the sponsorship and interpellation, the Commission resume
consideration of Committee Report No. 4 of the Committee on Citizenship
and move on to the period of amendments. I would like to present this
motion so that a decision could be made on this matter, and in order to give
a chance to those who may have amendments to Committee Report No. 4 on
citizenship, that this discussion be held three days from now or exactly on
July 3.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Suarez): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
Also, as agreed upon, starting July 7, we will spend more time in plenary
sessions because we will be considering committee reports until August 25.
For this reason, I would like to propose that beginning July 7, our sessions
start at 2:30 p.m. until we adjourn. The reason behind this is that those
committees that still wish to meet and wind up after the public hearings
would be able to devote the whole morning to their committee meetings
until lunch time. Therefore, the plenary session will begin at 2:30 in the
afternoon of July 7, until whatever time the Commissioners would wish to
continue the discussions.
I so move, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Suarez): There is a motion and a proposal
submitted by the Chairman of the Steering Committee that beginning July 7,
1986, the sessions start at 2:30 p.m. until such time as may be decided by
the body.
Does the Chair hear any objection to the second motion submitted by the
Chairman of the Steering Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
second motion is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Suarez): The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 263
(Article on National Territory)
Continuation
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we continue the consideration of
Proposed Resolution No. 263. We are still in the period of sponsorship. I
would like to remind the body that under the Rules, three speakers in favor of
the resolution may be recognized and only two speakers in turno en contra
would be recognized, each to be given 15 minutes. Of course, during the
interpellations, those who may not be able to speak for or against can always
bring up their views.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I request that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized as
sponsor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Suarez): The Honorable Nolledo is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Those who may wish to interpellate, please register with the Floor
Leader for a more speedy proceeding.
I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr
Suarez):
The
Honorable
Sarmiento
is
I know the Gentleman cannot see from that area. At least, he can try to see
the map of the Philippines in accordance with the boundaries set forth in the
Treaty of Paris.
According to Ambassador Arreglado, from the base lines, we have 320 miles
on the east coast of Luzon and 150 miles on the west coast of Luzon.
Ordinarily, and I think even technically, under the Law of the Sea, we have
only the 12-mile limit which is known as the territorial sea. Also, according to
him that territorial sea should not be equated with the territorial waters. We
have the territorial waters set forth in the Treaty of Paris going much beyond
the 12-mile limit. And, therefore, that should be respected because,
according to him, the Treaty of Paris is an old treaty adhered to by other
nations under the principle of quieta non movere and, therefore, should be
binding upon all nations of the world.
I would like to quote the noteworthy observations of Ambassador Arreglado
for purposes of posterity because there may be international cases that may
be brought to the International Court of Justice later. In conclusion, he said:
In view of all the considerations-legal, historical, geographical and
geological-expounded above, it appears clearly that the international validity
of the Philippine instrument of Ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention
with the understandings embodied in the Philippine Declaration attached
thereto, is fully justified by the following established facts, to wit:
First, that the Law of the Sea Convention is designed solely to establish, with
due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a new treaty regime or legal
order for the seas and oceans which are beyond the territorial limits of
national jurisdiction of States and which are thus considered as res
communes:
Second, that it is not within the contemplation of the Law of the Sea
Convention to prescribe rules for the regulation or limitation of the sovereign
authority vested in, and exercised by, a State over the sea areas forming an
integral part of its national territory for to do so would run counter to the
fundamental rules of international law underlying the principles of consent,
independence, sovereignty and equality of States, which are in the nature of
Jus Cogens and beyond the competence of States to modify or abrogate by
treaty;
Third, that the Philippine Archipelago our ancestral homeland is not just a
group of islands, but an island- studded sea, whose territorial boundaries
were delineated by parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude along
specified degrees set forth in Article III of the Peace Treaty of Paris of 10
December 1898, between Spain and the United States of America, and the
Treaty of Washington between the United States of America and Great Britain
of January 2, 1930, and Article I of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions of the
Philippines;
Fourth, that under international customary law and the juridical principles
enunciated in various decisions of arbitral tribunals and international courts
of justice, such international treaties involving changes and transfers of State
territories and defining their frontiers are of general interest and concern, not
only to the parties directly involved, but also to all Third States, and in case
of silence on their part, such silence will be construed as a form of tacit
consent or recognition of the existing situation; and that following the
established international law principle of quieta non movere, said treaties
have now become an integral part of the Law of Nations and thus binding
upon all Members of the international Community of States, insofar as the
delimitation of the national frontiers of the Philippine Archipelago is
concerned; and
Fifth, that the series of Understandings embodied in the Philippine
Declaration are simply statements of the interpretation placed by the
Philippine Government upon certain provisions of the Law of the Sea
Convention which are deemed to be per se not applicable to the internal and
territorial waters enclosed within the international treaty limits defining the
territorial boundaries of the Philippine Archipelago, and cannot, therefore, in
any manner impair and prejudice the sovereign rights exercised by the
Republic of the Philippines over all the sea areas forming an integral part of
its national territory as defined and delimited in the Philippine Constitution.
Lastly, Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to mention in passing that Article
310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea permits the
setting forth of understandings or reservations before the Treaty is signed by
any representative of a party-nation to that Convention.
So, that is the reason Mr. Tolentino made certain understandings or
reservations, which I referred to in the last two sessions. These reservations
were taken into account when the Law of the Sea was ratified by our
Batasang Pambansa.
I am now ready to entertain further questions.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Suarez):
The
Honorable
Sarmiento
is
the United States and Great Britain) of 1930. Because of the Sabah claim and
the claim over Freedomland and the Marianas Islands, the Committee on
National Territory of the 1971 Constitutional Convention headed by Delegate
Eduardo Quintero although I was not a member thereof I attended all its
meetings used the words historic right or legal title. So, to eliminate
these words would be retrogression of the highest order.
MR. ABUBAKAR We have no objection to the inclusion of that phraseology by
historic right or legal title because this is broad enough to cover whatever
claim we may have as a matter of right through history. I refer to the
nonspecification of whatever claim over any territory.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is correct. Our recommended provision does not
specify any area of territory over which we lay our claim.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Suarez): What is the pleasure of the Gentleman
from Bulacan?
MR. OPLE: With the permission of the Gentlemen on the floor, I just want to
make a very important distinction between the Kalayaan Islands and Sabah.
MR. NOLLEDO: I have no objection, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I just want to point out that this is such a sensitive matter
which can be the germ for future conflict with another country. In the case of
the Kalayaan Islands adverted to by Commissioner Abubakar, there is no
claim to speak of. We are in physical possession of the Kalayaan Islands. We
have local governments existing there under the Provincial Government of
Palawan and Region IV comprising the Southern Tagalog region. This is
completely different from other territories that may be contemplated under
historic right or legal title including Sabah and the Marianas Islands. I think it
is very important to correct the record with respect to that, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Suarez): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be
recognized to interpellate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Suarez): Honorable Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the distinguished sponsor yield to
a few questions?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, gladly.
MR. MAAMBONG: The sponsor will probably agree with me that this problem
or this issue on national territory is very closely tied up with the issue on
sovereignty.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I agree.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not claim to know much about
public international law but what little I know from my former professor, then
Chief Justice Concepcion, is that when we talk of a territory of a country, we
have to be specific about it. Will the sponsor agree with that, Mr. Presiding
Officer?
MR. NOLLEDO: I should qualify, because if we specify all the islands that
would form the territory of our country, it might happen that we might leave
out other islands that should also belong to our territory.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, I will, therefore, clarify the matter
by propounding some more questions on the issue. When I talk about the
relationship between territory and sovereignty, I am actually talking about
the situation that when a state claims sovereignty, it claims sovereignty
actually on two things: one, the territory, and the other, the persons and
things within the territory. And when we talk about sovereignty, we are also
talking about effective exercise of sovereignty in the sense that if the state,
for instance, the Philippines, claims ownership over Taiwan by just saying
that Taiwan is hers, that is a hollow claim because we really do not have
effective control over Taiwan and we do not have jurisdiction over the
persons living in it. Is that clear enough, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, it is very clear. I believe the Gentleman is talking of the
doctrine of effective control as recognized by public international law.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, precisely, Mr. Presiding Officer.
When we say we have sovereignty over persons that means that whether
these people are citizens or not does not really matter. They still owe
allegiance to the state who owns the territory.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is right.
MR. MAAMBONG: And in that connection, if I may refer later to the committee
report of Commissioner Bernas, when we have effective control of the
citizens we can even determine whether they are natural-born or not. In this
way, we can even grant them citizenship.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is right.
those boundaries be violated by third parties, then we can always ask for the
intercession of the United Nations first through the Security Council, then,
perhaps, we can appeal to the General Assembly. Finally, if both parties
agree, they can submit the question to the International Court of Justice.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the Gentleman for the explanation. But in order not
to prolong my questions, I think we should delimit our discussion on the word
sovereignty and the phrase claim of sovereignty. Are these two different
things?
MR. NOLLEDO: We can exercise sovereignty over the boundaries set forth in
the Treaty of Paris. If that sovereignty could not be effectively exercised,
sovereignty over these boundaries would not be lost.
Moreover, if other nations violate ones territorial jurisdiction, then the
aggrieved nation has the remedies guaranteed and set forth in the United
Nations Charter.
MR. MAAMBONG: I will go to another point.
Much has been said about Sabah. Actually, I do not even know where Sabah
is. Perhaps, the sponsor could help me. Is Sabah under our effective control
in terms of exercising actual sovereignty?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is why we did not include the word Sabah in the
definition. I personally believe that the observations of the Honorable Ople
are very note worthy. In the referendum conducted by the United Nations
among the people of Sabah, the people of Sabah opted to join the Federation
of Malaysia. I feel that for practical purposes or by being pragmatic, we had
to settle for the words historic right or legal title since we cannot exercise
sovereignty over Sabah. It seems to me that the Honorable Ople has no
objection to those words appearing in the definition of the national territory.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just to leave this issue, we should, therefore agree that we
have no effective territorial control over Sabah, neither do we have effective
control of sovereign over its inhabitants.
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree.
MR. MAAMBONG: The sponsor agrees; he can still open the avenue for claims
but not actually effective sovereignty, only a mere claim.
MR. NOLLEDO: In that connection, I would like to quote again the very
studious Ambassador Juan Arreglado. He said that the people of Sabah are
dissatisfied with their administration. Here, I do not mean that we foment the
MR. MAAMBONG: So that I will not take much of the sponsors time, this
historic right or legal title is actually susceptible to interpretation. It can be
interpreted to extend to whatever islands, depending upon the person
interpreting it using available documents.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would try to qualify the words depending upon the person
interpreting. It should depend upon the competent authority who will
interpret the question based on documents that are available, like the Treaty
of Paris.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is my last point.
In this connection, I will have to overlap a little bit with the question of
Commissioner Sarmiento. I have here a quotation which says that it is not
practical to define the national boundaries of a state because a constitution,
being a municipal law, would anyway have no binding effect on other states
for which statement a countrys territorial limits can only be intended.
On this statement, I would like to recall that in the United States, they have
omitted in their Constitution the definition of their national territory. I do not
know whether or not this was intentionally done. My point is: Would the
sponsor agree with that statement that a constitution, being a municipal law,
has no binding effect on other states?
MR. NOLLEDO: I vigorously disagree. While it is true that the constitution is a
municipal law, the constitution refers not only to the particular provisions of
that constitution but also to previous treaties.
I would like the Commissioner to know that the Treaty of Paris is a treaty
sanctioned by public international law. With the kind indulgence of the
Members of this Constitutional Commission, may I recall what I stated in my
opposition remarks on the motion to delete the definition of the national
territory in the 1971 Constitutional Convention. I said that the Treaty of Paris
of 1898, entered into between two maritime powers of the world, the United
States and Spain, fixed the international limits of our waters. Our claim over
these waters is predicated upon Spains title held unchallenged across a
colonial span of more than three centuries, except in sporadic but few
instances during that period by the other nations of the world. It was this title
that Spain ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Paris a title
recognized by the United States Congress through pertinent provisions of
the Hare-Hawes Cutting Act and the Jones Law. It was this title which we set
forth in our 1935 Constitution, ratified by 1,200,000 Filipinos, and it was also
this title that the United States, admittedly a great world power, relinquished
in favor of the Republic of the Philippines on July 4, 1946. I fervently hope
that this Commission will likewise set forth this same title in our pew
Constitution in the face of unjustified threat to the sovereignty of our internal
and territorial waters posed in these modern times by economically selfcentered nations of the world, including the United States.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the Commissioner for that quotation.
But is he actually saying that the Treaty of Paris is now being incorporated in
the present Constitution that we are forming?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. If we delve into the records of the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, the words historic right and legal title necessarily referred to
the Treaty of Paris and other related treaties that I mentioned here.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am talking of the present Constitution we are drafting.
MR. NOLLEDO: When we adopted the 1973 Constitution, we necessarily
referred to the Treaty of Paris and other treaties that recognized our
boundaries.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am referring to the present Constitution we are drafting.
MR. NOLLEDO: We have not adopted in toto the last sentence the
definition embodied in the 1973 Constitution. I would like this Commission to
know that it is the intention of the Committee and I hope it will also be the
intention of this Commission that the Treaty of Paris and the other treaties
related thereto should not be lost in the definition of national territory.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is my last question: I have read several books about
the 1935 Constitution and from my readings, found out that the reason we
indicated a provision on the National Territory was to prevent
dismemberment of our country by the United States. All of us will probably
recall that our 1935 Constitution was a very unique document in the sense
that it had to be approved by the President of the United States. And
considering that the national territory was clearly indicated therein, it
actually became a contract between the United States and our country.
According to the book of Sinco, the only purpose for inserting that provision
on the national territory was not really to define our national territory but to
bind the United States, upon the signature of its President, in terms of
contract and to prevent dismemberment of our country.
If that is a correct statement, would it not support the theory that, if it were
not for that consideration, this provision on the national territory in the 1935
Constitution would never have been there? And so in our present formulation
we are not bound to put a similar provision on National Territory because the
consideration which prevailed in 1935 is no longer existing today. That is my
last question..
OFFICER
(Mr.
Suarez):
Commissioner
Concepcion
is
MR. DAVIDE: No, not that. But that is really the concept of the 1971
Constitutional Convention a adopted in the 1973 Constitution where we
adopted the archipelagic doctrine. And so, if we adopt the archipelagic
doctrine, the 320 miles stated in the Treaty of Paris would even be far
exceeded.
MR. NOLLEDO: Where will it be measured?
MR . DAVIDE: From the archipelagic base line.
MR. NOLLEDO: What is the specific area of the archipelagic base line?
MR. DAVIDE: I would not really be in a position to determine on the basis of
the archipelagic doctrine, because one has to consider the outermost points.
MR. NOLLEDO: We have set forth the base lines. We used the straight
method as recognized by Republic Acts 3046 and 5446.
According to Senator Tolentino, we measure necessarily the 200-mile limit
from the base lines we have set forth in these two Republic Acts. That is the
observation. If we follow that opinion, then we will be amending the 320
miles set forth in the Treaty of Paris. That is the observation of Ambassador
Arreglado.
MR. DAVIDE: The Gentleman has presented that map. Is that the same map
that was shown by the representative of the Bureau of Geodetic Survey?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Did the Gentleman not remember that this representative of the
bureau admitted that they had not prepared the map of the Republic of the
Philippines on the basis of the 1973 Constitution?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, on the basis of the 1973 Constitution without mentioning
the Treaty of Paris.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, that bureau has not yet prepared a map of the
Philippines in accordance with the definition of national territory as laid down
in the 1973 Constitution?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would say that should be qualified in the sense that perhaps
they have not complied with Republic Act 3046, as amended by Republic Act
5446.
MR. DAVIDE: Precisely.
MR. NOLLEDO: But these Acts are municipal legislations. They exist and are
considered binding until superseded.
MR. DAVIDE: Only for purposes of the domestic law. But we are now seeking
to define what is really the length and breadth of the national territory.
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as domestic law is concerned, I will agree with the
Gentleman, but as far as international law is concerned, we have to refer
necessarily to the Treaty of Paris.
MR. DAVIDE: The Treaty of Paris?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, except for the 320-mile limit counted from the base line
as defined in our municipal legislations.
MR. DAVIDE: Regarding the Treaty of Paris, would we, therefore, refer to the
definition of Philippine territory as defined under the 1935 Constitution? Is
that the position of the Committee, that we will rewrite the 1935
Constitution?
MR. NOLLEDO: I will not speak for the Committee. But the Treaty of Paris has
never been superseded even by the 1973 Constitution. It seems to me that
the Gentleman is implying that the 1935 Constitution, mentioning the Treaty
of Paris, has been modified by the 1973 Constitution. I would not even say
then that the Treaty of Paris setting the boundaries of the Republic of the
Philippines had been modified by the Convention on the Law of the Sea. On
the contrary, it would be very unfortunate if we state the Law of the Sea here
by reference to the definition of the national territory.
MR. DAVIDE: We have here the proceedings of the interim Batasang
Pambansa when the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was presented for
ratification. I will quote for the record the statement of the sponsor, then
Assemblyman Arturo Tolentino, just to show that we will increase the area of
the Philippines by no less than 93 million hectares. I hope this will enlighten
us in treating this national territory. This is found in the Record of the interim
Batasang Pambansa, volume 4, page 708, and I quote:
The exclusive economic zone is one of the new concepts in the Convention
on the Law of the Sea, as an additional maritime area of states. It is a belt
around the archipelago of not more than 200 nautical miles wide, measured
from the archipelagic base lines. Like other states, the Philippines has certain
rights in this exclusive economic zone set forth in the Convention; namely:
1) Sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving
and managing the natural resources, whether living or nonliving, of the
waters and the seabed and deep subsoil;
speech. But if we count from the base line downward enclosing the Sulu Sea,
we will be infringing upon the jurisdiction of Borneo. One cannot measure
anything else beyond 200 miles as permitted by the Petroleum Act and the
Convention on the Law of the Sea. So, I think, it can be reconciled in this way
and this is very important. If we assume that the 320 miles will be infringed,
that would not be so because of the reservation of Assemblyman Tolentino
when he signed the Convention on the Law of the Sea. And it runs like this
if the Gentleman does not mind, I would like to read:
. . . Such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of the
Republic of the Philippines as successor of the United States of America,
under and arising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United
States of America of December 10, 1898, and the Treaty of Washington
between the United States of America and Great Britain of January 2, 1930.
In other words, Assemblyman Tolentino wanted to reserve, as a way of
understanding, that he was signing the treaty on condition that the treaty
limits set forth in the Treaty of Paris must be given full respect. And in all
other cases, as stated in the observations of Assemblyman Tolentino and as
read by the Gentleman, the national territory would really be expanded. I
would say that the Gentlemans view and my view can be reconciled.
MR. DAVIDE: The expansion would be to the north, to the south, to the east
and to the west of the Republic of the Philippines, because the basis for the
measurement of the 200 nautical miles is from the archipelagic base line,
and not just the original concept.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is why I am asking the Gentleman how he defines an
archipelagic base line.
MR. DAVIDE: Now, any final question, just for clarifying the record: The next
generation of Filipinos our grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on
can still claim Sabah. And this Article on National Territory will be their
constitutional and legal basis for such a claim. Am I correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, if one uses the words historic right or legal title.
MR. DAVIDE: That is the meaning there.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Suarez): What is the pleasure of the Floor
Leader?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Concepcion would like to make one short
statement in connection with the previous interpellation.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Suarez):
Commissioner
Concepcion
is
MR. NOLLEDO: It is a very good observation, but when we did not mention
internal waters in the first sentence, it was because of the use of the term
Philippine Archipelago. So we put there with all the islands in waters
embraced therein. As I already stated, according to the observations of
Ambassador Arreglado, our country is considered just as one big basin. So,
because of the use of the word archipelago, we did not mention the words
internal waters anymore.
MR. PADILLA: Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code also mentions Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone.
The third sentence was recommended by the Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: Why does it start with Sovereignty or Jurisdiction of the
Philippines? Why do we not just say: THE NATIONAL TERRITORY SHALL ALSO
EXTEND OR INCLUDE THE STRAITS CONNECTING THESE WATERS? Why not
say ITS TERRITORIAL WATERS WITH THE ECONOMIC ZONE PROVIDED IN THE
CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a matter of style. I agree with the Vice-President. He
may present his amendment at the appropriate time.
MR. PADILLA: I realize that the Article already states over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. But then the third sentence
stresses sovereignty or jurisdiction when we are talking of the national
territory. So, perhaps, in the period of amendments . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. We can amend it at the appropriate time.
MR. PADILLA: The last point is, it mentions territorial sea, then the air space,
the subsoil, the seabed, the insular shelves and other submarine areas. Are
not the later phrases extensions of the term territorial sea rather than
territorial air space, because if we talk of the air space the atmosphere
then there is no direct connection with the seabed, insular shelves, and so
forth?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think this is also a matter of style. The observation is welltaken.
MR. PADILLA: I was going to suggest that we probably say TERRITORIAL
SPACE OR ATMOSPHERE. Now, I do not know whether the term subsoil
refers to land or land below the sea. If it refers to land below the sea, then
after the phrase AIR SPACE OR ATMOSPHERE, we transpose the sea. Then
all these subsequent phrases seabed, insular shelves, etc. would refer
to the sea rather than to air space.
R.C.C. NO. 21
Tuesday, July 1, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:13 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Regalado E. Maambong.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
MR. MAAMBONG: First of all, I wish to acknowledge the kind words and
prayers of Reverend Father Francisco Silva of Toledo City, Cebu, which
provoked my thoughts for todays Prayer.
PRAYER
We pray further that You will prod us to finish our work on the scheduled date
with our tempers controlled and our sanity intact; and when our work is over,
that we shall have produced a document worthy of ratification by our people,
a document we can all be proud of, a document really worth dying for.
And, finally, we pray that You enlighten our minds with Your Divine Light, so
that each one of us, in his or her individual way, will have the courage to do
what is RIGHT. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Alonto
Aquino
Azcuna
Bacani
Bengzon
Bennagen
Bernas
Rosario Braid
Brocka
Calderon
Castro de
Colayco
Concepcion
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Present
Present *
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present *
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
THE
The legal implications here as pointed out by Senator Salonga who was the
head of a panel on the talks on Sabah in representation of the Philippines
are: Overbeck and Dent were private persons. Therefore, they could not have
acquired sovereign powers from the Sultan of Sulu.
Overbeck and Dent turned over the rights to the North Borneo Company
which was also a private corporation as confirmed by the British. It was a
private corporation; it never achieved a public mantle. So there could not
have been any sovereign rights transferred between the Sultan of Sulu to
Overbeck and Dent nor to the British North Borneo Company. In other words,
there was no transfer of Sovereign rights.
Among the grounds pointed out is that in law and in logic, a person who pays
rental on a property cannot claim ownership to that property which is very
obvious.
The fact that has been stressed is that North Borneo, Sabah and the British
government in Sabah had been paying rentals to the Sultan of Sulu and his
heirs up to 1950 thereabouts. As a matter of fact, there was a stop page of
the payment but not because the British government disputed the authority
or the title of the Sultan of Sulu, but because there was a dispute as to who
were the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu. That was the only dispute. In other
words, there was a continuous payment of rentals and that is one of the
reasons why we presented our claim to North Borneo.
Another thing to be pointed out here is that during the talks in London, Jovito
Salonga, who is an excellent international lawyer, was able to insert in their
communique which was subsequently approved Sultanate of Sulu. He
used as an argument that, indeed, the British government recognized the
sovereign powers of the Sultan as far as Sabah was concerned because they
have signed that communique which refers to the Sultanate of Sulu. That is
why there was an agreement that after the talks in London, there would be
further talks in Manila. But the British government, realizing the blunder
made by the chief legal officer, avoided any further talks in Manila.
With respect to the so-called referendum under the auspices of the United
Nations, that referendum had been questioned and disputed by the
Philippine government because it was rigged. As a matter of fact, many of
those people who voted were illiterates who never knew what the issue was
all about. Is the Gentleman aware of these facts?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I am aware. I think the Gentleman faithfully reproduced
the facts that led to the Sabah claim.
MR. RAMA: Does the Gentleman agree with me that this legal claim and
historic title, the legal title that he mentioned in the proposal, have some
solid bases as far as Sabah is concerned?
MR. NOLLEDO: That was the intention of the Committee on National Territory
of the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
MR. RAMA: Therefore, that phrase would include claims of territories
including Sabah?
MR. NOLLEDO: We can claim under those words the Gentleman mentioned.
MR. RAMA: Thank you.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to call on Commissioner Guingona who has
registered to interpellate. Those who would like to speak, please register with
me.
With the indulgence of Commissioner Guingona, here is an important
information from the Chairman of the Steering Committee.
MR. BENGZON: This is just to comply with the technicality, Mr. Presiding
Officer. There is a communication sent by the Committee on the Executive to
the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions through the
Steering Committee. To comply with the technicality, I move that this
communication be formally transferred by the Steering Committee to the
Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions. It has something to do
with the deletion from the new Constitution of the provision granting
presidential immunity.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romulo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I have been given ten minutes so I will try to go as fast as possible.
I offer no objection to the inclusion of a provision on national territory in the
proposed Constitution, although I would underscore the need for us, in
drafting this provision, to be as flexible as possible so that we would not
close the door to any claim which our government may wish to make in the
future, either claims that are foreseen now as well as claims that are
Committee to study our claim on Sabah, and I said that the general practice
of the principle of self-determination is a course of action which has been
repeatedly followed by states in the conduct of their foreign relations. Selfdetermination is not a special rule peculiar only in Asia, Africa, America or
Europe; it is a principle which is universally accepted and followed. In fact, it
has been followed in bilateral and multilateral treaties and conventions,
including the Potomac Charter, the Atlantic Charter, the Pacific Charter, the
Bandung Declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and even
the United Nations Charter.
There is no quarrel, Mr. Presiding Officer, about the matter of selfdetermination. Woodrow Wilson said that self-determination is not a mere
phrase; it is an imperative principle of action which statesmen will
henceforth ignore at their peril. But may I invite the honorable Members of
this Commission to the United Nations General Assemblys Declaration on
principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation
among states in accordance with its Charter on the right of peoples to
determine their own political, economic, social and cultural development.
This is found in the very first article of this declaration, and I shall read, with
your permission:
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples
enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right
freely to determine their development.
There is, therefore, need for free and consensual determination. There have
been allegations and I do not say that these allegations are valid or
correct; I do not know about the fact that there had been no free and
consensual determination and these allegations must be looked into. You
have, for example, the fact that the Philippines did not have an observer
during the so-called self-determination held in Sabah. There was also the fact
that this exercise of self-determination, which is similar to our electoral
process, was shortened unilaterally from six weeks to ten days. There is the
statement contained in the Malaysia Official Yearbook of 1969, and I quote:
Regular police and riot squads were in evidence everywhere during the U.N.Malaysia Mission Survey. Buses, trucks, and other vehicles were mobilized to
bring hundreds of villagers from remote areas into the North Borneo capital.
Finally, and most important of all, at the time of the so-called selfdetermination, North Borneo or Sabah was a colony of Great Britain. As we
know, Great Britain was a strong objector to the Philippine claim to Sabah
and had openly engineered the inclusion of Sabah into the Federation of
Malaysia. If these allegations were proven to be true and I would like to
emphasize that I do not say they are true then perhaps we cannot blame
those who have made the allegation that they suspect, to say the least, that
length of time for a long period of time that they are binding upon other
states.
So, I will answer the Gentlemans question. I have no objection if Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao be stated in the definition of the national territory. The
Gentleman can present that as an amendment later on and I will submit that
to the Commission for appropriate action.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. GUINGONA: Just a reaction, Mr. Presiding Officer, about the nonbinding
effect of the provision.
The treaty cited by the Gentleman precisely shows that our legal title is
dependent on the treaties. Take away the treaties, the territories that will be
described or included in the provision would be meaningless. And it is
precisely the treaties, not the provision of the Constitution, that give us the
title to these territories.
Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank the Gentleman for his observations.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romulo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I now ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized to interpellate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romulo): Mr. Floor Leader, may I ask a
question?
Mr. Floor Leader, I note that the Gentleman has been agreeing to a time limit
for each speaker, is that correct?
MR. RAMA: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romulo): The Chair would be very happy to act
as the timekeeper, if the body wishes, to gently remind the speaker when his
time is up. I may override the microphones below if need be.
So, is the Floor Leader in agreement that I shall gently remind him when the
10 minutes is up?
have to be backed up by the nation that adopts this Constitution now and at
certain times in the future. The possibility of backing up the claim with
armed force, which is a kind of sacred commitment of the nation to the
defense of its own territory and the pursuit of what it believes to be a just
claim, can mean committing the lives of Filipinos, whether of this generation
or of coming generations to an enterprise which is being sanctioned right
now by implication and by principle in this territorial provision of the 1986
Constitution. Does the sponsor subscribe to that?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I fully subscribe.
MR. OPLE: According to the intent of the Committee, may I therefore know
whether or not there are any aggressive intentions against other countries
that are built into this territorial provision? May I also remind the sponsor
about the scandal of the Jabidah massacre. Thank God, that was aborted. It
could have brought this country into a state of war with another country on
claims that were revealed to be less solid, less substantial, and less sacred
than they were originally purported to be after the most intensive and careful
deliberation by competent authorities in our government. If that were not
aborted, that would have been an utterly irresponsible act of adventurism
that would have menaced the lives of many Filipinos for a cause, the clarity
and the sanctity of which had never been fully established.
That is the reason I put that question. I am sure the sponsor will deny and
disclaim any implication that we have any aggressive intentions towards any
neighbor of the Philippines under this clause historic right and legal title. Is
that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, but I think our country is committed to the peaceful
settlement of disputes as contemplated by the UN Charter.
MR. OPLE: Yes. We are a signatory to any number of international covenants
which proscribe the use of force. But we also know that the history of the
world very greatly departs from the assurances of such covenants. A lot
depends on the accident of leadership in a given country.
We can have a person with a Napoleonic complex in Malacaang I am
saying that this can happen in the future, not necessarily now who can
plunge us into war on the basis of innocent statements on the provision on
national territory which, of course, the sponsor now disclaims and I am glad
that he does so.
The next question: Is there anything in this provision that reviews, rescinds,
revokes or amends the action of the Philippine government in the Kuala
Lumpur Summit of 1977?
OFFICER
(Mr.
Romulo):
Commissioner
Abubakar
is
The Chair commends the distinguished Commissioner Ople for keeping well
within his time.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have listened to Commissioner Oples
peroration on the issue before us.
I was the Ambassador to Malaysia when the claim of the Philippines over
Sabah was presented and the reply of the Malaysian government to this
claim was transmitted. It almost erupted into a break of diplomatic relations
between the Philippines and Malaysia. In my inspection trip to Sabah, I found
out that a big group of Sitangkai people had acquired all the rights pertaining
Sabah, was with the Sultan of Sulu but he lost it in Singapore. The other copy
is now with the British government but despite many requests from our
government, the British government never showed us its copy.
In the old days, every time we signed a treaty, it is one parchment. When we
open it, both sides contained the same provision, and when we put them
together, both copies fit well. This shows the authenticity of the original
document.
All this aside, we were never able to persuade the powers and even other
countries belonging to the ASEAN that our claim to Sabah still subsists
because they feel that, if there is anyone to decide the fate of Sabah
considering the concept of democracy and freedom it is not the Sultan of
Sulu or the Philippines but the people of the territory itself.
I was the Philippine Ambassador to Malaysia at that time. Our committee
then reviewed the whole development and researched about our Sabah
claim in various libraries including those in England and in the United States.
Later, as we gathered more evidence, treaties, and documents, we found out
that our claim was not only weak but it did not have the support of the
people of Sabah, which is a criterion in any democracy. The voice of the
people is the voice of God.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romulo): The Commissioner has one minute
left.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Still, we pursued this and later on, we stopped. We are now
convinced that the pursuit of our claim over Sabah would produce no result.
If we are brave enough, the only alternative is to conquer Sabah. Are we
ready for it? The people of Sulu and Mindanao will have no part in such an
adventure, and, therefore, I feel that as far as the Sabah claim is concerned,
we should not incorporate this into the Constitution, because we are not
ready to invade. This is an act of war. Malaysia will resist it; Sabah will resist
it. We might as well reconcile our interests for the sake of unity, regional
trade and understanding among the ASEAN nations.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romulo): Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to make a statement about
the phrase sovereignty of the Sultan of Sulu. I think the Sultan of Sulu had
proprietary rights over North Borneo or Sabah as claimed by him, including
the heirs, but not sovereignty. Perhaps when we talk of sovereignty there, we
do not talk in its technical sense. We may be referring to sovereignty in its
OFFICER
(Mr.
Romulo):
Commissioner
Villacorta
is
MR. AZCUNA: I think under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, it has been
extended to 24 miles.
MR. NOLLEDO: We assume that.
MR. AZCUNA: At any rate, at the outer limit of our territorial sea starts the
exclusive economic zone. Is that correct, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Commissioner kindly repeat the question?
MR. AZCUNA: Immediately beyond the outer limit of the territorial sea will
start the exclusive economic zone.
MR. AZCUNA: In the last sentence, the sponsor mentioned straits that he
would like to add to our territory that would connect our archipelagic waters
or our territorial waters with the economic zone. And all that the sponsor is
saying really is that Philippine sovereignty or jurisdiction extends over these
straits.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a very good observation because that is based on the
Davide resolution and it says shall also extend to straits connecting these
waters with the economic zone. So the straits do not necessarily mean the
economic zone itself, based on the Gentlemans observation.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, but they have to be either in the territorial waters or in the
economic zone, because there is no in between space.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. AZCUNA: I noticed that one of the reservations of Assemblyman
Tolentino is that the concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept
of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines and removes
straits connecting these waters with the economic zone or high seas from
the rights of foreign vessels to innocent passage for international navigation.
In other words, as far as we are concerned, these straits are part of our
territory, part of our internal waters, and not subject to the right of innocent
passage.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the Gentleman is right.
MR. AZCUNA: And my last question, Mr. Presiding Officer . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think the Commission would like to
know that Commissioner Azcuna is a recognized authority of public
international law, a professor on the subject at the Ateneo de Manila.
MR. NOLLEDO: I gave the Commissioner my opinion that Marcos had no sole
authority.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much, but I am still confused.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there are two names that are registered
here to speak during the debate and Commissioner Bernas is to speak en
contra. Since nobody else is going to speak in favor they have already
expressed their favorable views during the interpellation may I ask that
Commissioner Bernas be recognized to speak en contra?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romulo): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, before I say what I have to say, may I be
allowed to ask a number of questions, because if they are answered clearly,
it may not be necessary for me to say anything. The questions are along the
same line as those of Commissioner Rodrigo.
It is very clear that the provision now reproduces word for word the provision
of the 1973 Constitution using the phrase by historic right or legal title and
so forth. In the sponsorship speech of Delegate Custodio Villalba, when he
was sponsoring this in 1972, he said that it was put in there precisely to
include the claim to Sabah. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: And when Delegate Quintero spoke on this matter as chairman
of the Committee on National Territory, he also said that this provision was
precisely added to include the claim, among other things, on Sabah. Is that
correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: And Committee Report No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of
1971 also said that this provision was intended to cover, among other parts
of the world, Sabah. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: So that it is the intention of the Committee, by reproducing this
Article, to include Sabah?
MR. NOLLEDO: That we can pursue our claim over Sabah under these words.
SPEECH EN CONTRA OF COMMISSIONER BERNAS
FR. BERNAS: I was about to say that in yesterdays comic strip Beetle
Bailey, the soldiers were complaining that cannons now are not the same as
cannons before. And they explained that whereas cannons before said
boom, cannons now just say boomlet. And yesterday, I was quoted by
Commissioners Sarmiento and Maambong to a certain extent that I think
they already stole my boomlet. But since Father Bernas was quoted
yesterday, I thought it might be fair if he be allowed himself to speak for,
even if he may not say it as eloquently as the others who quoted him.
First of all, let me clarify that I am not going to speak against the Article in
toto. I just want to remove from the Article any portion which, while not
serving the interest of the nation, can do harm to the nation. But in order for
me to be able to explain fully what I have to say, it seems necessary to say
that there are certain valid reasons for saying that there should be no Article
on the National Territory in a constitution a general principle. I would say,
however, that since we have done it before, if we can do it in a harmless
way, by all means, we will do it. But let us not do it in a way that will do any
harm to our nation.
I say that it is really not for a constitution to have an Article on National
Territory because, as has been often said in this body, a constitution is a
municipal law. As a municipal law, it is only binding on the country which
promulgates it. So, we can assert our claim over any territory until we are
blue in the face. But if our claim is not supported by any other document
extraneous to the Constitution, then our claim is useless.
As a matter of fact, in the debates of the Constitutional Convention in 1971
when the Constitutional Convention started to fumigate the 1935 Article of
all colonial traces, they eliminated any mention of the Treaty of Paris; they
eliminated any mention of the Treaty of Washington, of Great Britain and so
forth, and they were asked: Why eliminate those? The answer was because
we do not want to be reminded of our colonial past. But then, they put in
archipelago in the Article. Where is the archipelago? The archipelago is the
territory delineated by the Treaty of Paris as modified by the Treaty of
Washington and of Great Britain, etc.
In other words, we did a paint job. We wanted to have our cake and eat it
too. We did not want to admit; we did not want to hear the words Treaty of
Paris, but we have to rely on the Treaty of Paris in itself.
In other words, if the Constitution has any force at all in binding other
nations, it is not because it is a constitution but because it is supported by
other international documents or principles which can support it.
As already said here, this was put here for a very valid historical reason.
There was at that time a Bacon Bill in the Congress of the United States
which intended to dis-member the territory of the Philippines, and since the
Tydings-McDuffie Law said that, if the Constitution of the Philippines had to
be accepted by the United States government, then the delegates to the
1935 Constitutional Convention said that we should bind the hands of the
United States by making them agree to this. And so, the United States
government agreed. As far as the Philippines and the United States
government were concerned, the 1935 Constitution was not just an ordinary
Constitution, but it was an international agreement between the two of them,
and that is why it is there.
When we started formulating the Constitution in 1972, we were no longer
dependent on the United States; but just the same, for reasons which were
not totally convincing, we put the Article on the National Territory in there. As
I said, there was no harm there, provided that we did not include anything
which could harm ourselves.
My only objection is the possible harm that can be done by the phrase all
other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title. It
is very clear historically from the debates of the 1972 Constitutional
Convention and from the debates now that it is intended to cover Sabah But
it is also very clear that since the Constitution is a municipal law, even if we
assert our claim to Sabah, very clearly, it is a claim which will not in any way
bind Kuala Lumpur. So, legally, in terms of public international law, it does
not help us in anyway.
Yesterday, it was said that President Macapagal was embarrassed when he
was asked: Where in your Constitution does it say that you have a claim?
He should not have been embarrassed. The one who asked him the question
should have been embarrassed because he was legally wrong. The
Constitution is not the right place to look for territorial claim.
Aside from this, it seems to me there is also a question on due process. Now,
we are, in effect, being asked to have a valid claim over Sabah. Equivalently,
we are asked to make a judgment on the Philippine claim over Sabah, a
judgment which I suppose should be done with due process a process
which hears and examines evidence before it decides. We are being asked to
make a decision on a legal claim for which evidence has not been sufficiently
presented to us. We are in no position to make the judgment. We are in no
position to make the judgment because we do not know what the evidence
is. There may be evidence but we have not seen it; it has not been shown to
us, and we have not heard the other side. For that reason, if we must put an
Article on National Territory, let us excise from it anything which may look
unfair or ridiculous, and which will not help us in any way.
There is another point. We have included in the national territory the
Archipelagic Principle. When this was included in the 1973 Constitution, it
made no waves because nobody complained about it. But this business of
historic right or legal title has harmed our relationship with our neighbor
Malaysia. While it has created harm, it does not help us at all legally. So, why
put it there? It will not weaken our claim, in any way, over any territory in the
Philippines if we scrap the entire Article on National Territory. It will not
weaken whatever claim we may have over Sabah, if we take this out because
whatever claim we have will have to be supported, not by our assertions, but
by evidence extraneous to the Constitution.
Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Gentleman yield to interpellations?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: When this provision was discussed in the 1971 Constitutional
Convention Committee on National Territory, Delegate Quintero said that the
words historic right or legal title did not cover Sabah alone, but they had
reference also to the Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Washington and the treaty
between the United States and Great Britain. That is why, we have to read
the provision this way carefully: The national territory comprises the
Philippine Archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein,
and one has to connect these words with the following words: and all the
other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal
title, . . . In other words, the expression historic right or legal title may
also refer to archipelago in order to give emphasis to the importance of
such a vital document as the Treaty of Paris and other related treaties.
FR. BERNAS: I am not saying that this phrase covers Sabah alone. As a
matter of fact, if we study the debates in the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
the phrase was used precisely as a coverall to any claim we may have over
other territories Spratley Island, Marianas, Sabah, and so forth. I am not
saying that it refers to Sabah alone. All I am saying is that it refers to Sabah,
among other places.
MR. NOLLEDO: Do I understand it right that Commissioner Bernas would like
to delete the words historic right or legal title from the definition of our
national territory?
FR. BERNAS: I would like to propose something but I do not have it ready
now. The problem is, historically, this phrase was given meaning by the 1971
Constitutional Convention. I want to use something where it is clear that we
are not making any unfounded claim, but at the same time does not include
the possibility for the Philippine government to make the claim later on.
FR. BERNAS: I think as far as the South is concerned, the Gentleman really
has no problem, but our problem is in the North, with respect to Batanes
which seems not to have been included in any of the treaties Treaty of
Paris, Treaty of Washington and so forth and that precisely is the reason
why the phrase was inserted.
MR. ABUBAKAR: To avoid any misunderstanding on the part of our neighbors,
as well as the other Malaysian groups those include Indonesia and
Malaysia it would be best to remove any doubt on our intention to claim
Sabah.
Thank you, Commissioner Bernas.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there is just one more speaker to speak en
contra, after which we shall close the debate and move over to the period of
amendments tomorrow to give time for the Commissioners to draw up their
amendments.
I ask that Commissioner Alonto, the last speaker, be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romulo): Commissioner Alonto is recognized.
SPEECH EN CONTRA OF COMMISSIONER ALONTO
MR. ALONTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I registered my turn to speak against the proposal not because I am against
it fundamentally, but because, in line with what Commissioner Bernas has
stated, it is going to create some harm to this new nation. Unless we are
ready and prepared now to join the imperialist countries in the world, let us
give more thought to what Commissioner Bernas had suggested: let us not
put in this Constitution things that will bring us harm, and not good. As
Commissioner Ople stated, it was providential that the project which resulted
in the Jabidah massacre was aborted, otherwise we would have been
involved in a conflict that might have resulted not only in the destruction of
what we are now trying to build as the Filipino nation, but also in putting us
in the light of international image especially after the proclamation of
martial law as a nation that has not sought to join the concert of free
nations.
That is my only purpose, and because most of what I am supposed to say
here have already been stated by Commissioners Bernas and Abubakar, I
would like to close with the hope that this Commission will use its good sense
to eliminate from the Constitution, which we are going to frame, whatever
phrase that will cause harm to this nation.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Romulo):
Commissioner
Maambong
is
MR. MAAMBONG: A few session days ago, I presented a motion on the floor
seeking a grant of franking privilege to the Members of this Commission.
However, two of our distinguished colleagues opposed the motion and the
body, in an amazing display of patriotism and in the spirit of self-denial and
self-flagellation to borrow the description of the charming lady over there
voted against the motion and it was lost. It was to my mind, Mr. Presiding
Officer, a beautiful display of heroism and I am very proud to associate
myself with the heroes of this Chamber.
However, I now hasten to note the following news report from the newspaper
The Tribune, a Manila publication, Volume 1, No. 74 issue of Saturday, June
28, 1986, the pertinent portion of which I quote:
In Executive Order No. 23 released by Malacaang yesterday, President
Aquino granted the public franking privileges on all communications being
sent to the Con-Com to give the masses a voice in the proceedings.
Mrs. Aquino likewise entitled the Con-Com Members to franking of privileges
in the discharge of their duties.
The publics franking privilege on Con-Com communications
immediately and will be effective up to August 15, 1986.
begins
Similarly, in the Sun Star daily of Cebu City, June 28, 1986, quoting PNA, the
same news report was carried with this additional information which I
likewise quote:
In Executive Order No. 23, the President also granted the same privileges to
officers and members of the Con-Com. She directed Postmaster General
Joselito Banayo to issue the guideline in implementing the order. Mrs. Aquino
said, There is a need for an easy and inexpensive way by which
communication from the public can reach the Con-Com as embodied in
Commission Resolution No. 3 proposing for such franking privileges for both
the public and the Con-Com Members.
R.C.C. NO. 22
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Alonto
Aquino
Azcuna
Bacani
Bengzon
Bennagen
Bernas
Rosario Braid
Brocka
Calderon
Castro de
Colayco
Concepcion
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Present
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the
previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolutions on First
Reading and Communications, the President making the corresponding
references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 358, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION
THAT NO PARTY OR CANDIDATE SHALL HAVE MEMBERSHIP IN THE
REGISTRATION BOARDS, BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS, AND BOARD OF
CANVASSERS BUT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO APPOINT WATCHERS.
Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Proposed Resolution No. 359, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SECTION 4 (1)
OF ARTICLE IV OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION WITH MODIFICATION SO AS TO
FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PRIVACY OF
COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE.
Introduced by Hon. Treas.
The fluvial domain includes the inland waters: bays and rivers, streams, as
well as internal waters or the waters of the sea, landwards from the base
lines.
The aerial domain of the Philippines includes the air directly above its
terrestrial and fluvial domains. All the air that lies above our land territory
and our water territory belongs to us, all the way up to outer space where
there is no more air (because air is a mixture of gases, and where there is
only one gas helium there is no air). The aerial domain extends up to
where outer space begins, directly over our land and water territories.
Then we specify that our national territory includes the territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil again, we rearranged the sequence here. The
territorial sea comes first this is the margin or belt of maritime waters
adjacent to our base lines up to the extent of 12 nautical miles. It is a belt
surrounding our base lines seaward. Whether we like it or not, international
law imposes a territorial sea in every country that has waters. Under the
territorial sea is the seabed which belongs to us the seabed is the top
portion of the submarine area. This is followed by the subsoil or the land
under the seabed, which also belongs to us. And then, the insular shelves or
the continental shelf, meaning the submarine area that is directly under the
water beyond the territorial sea, up to the edge of the continental margin,
regardless of the depth of the superjacent waters. Under international law,
the continental shelf; namely, the seabed and subsoil of the submarine area,
belongs to us. This includes not only the continental shelf of individual
islands but the archipelagic shelves and the other submarine areas over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction this is true in the old
provision. This was intended to cover any other areas that also belong to us,
such as the continental slope or the continental margin, over which we have
jurisdiction or sovereignty. So, my proposal is that we just rearrange the
sequence there. With regard to the additional sentence on the straits, I would
like to remove it because the straits connecting the territorial waters with the
economic zone are part of our internal waters and, therefore, there is no
need to specify that. Our sovereignty or jurisdiction extends over them.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, the amendment proposed by Commissioner
Azcuna is a rather complicated amendment. It could be a minor nightmare
even for international lawyers. But for us who are not international lawyers, it
could be a major nightmare and a cause of insomnia for several nights.
So, I propose that before we begin to consider this and it is rather a
complicated substitution of what has been presented by the Commission I
would like the body to be supplied with a copy of this so that we can follow
the discussion more intelligently.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would suggest to Commissioner Azcuna to please
write it down and then, maybe, we can have it reproduced right away.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, we will do that. I have it written here, and
we can request the Secretariat to have it copied and distributed to the
Members.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 6:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:39 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, we ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be
recognized. He is rising on a question of parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Madam President.
It is the humble submission of this Commissioner that before we discuss the
amendments, we have to settle first a very prejudicial issue.
THE PRESIDENT:
Commissioner?
What
is
the
prejudicial
issue
referred
to
by
the
MR. SARMIENTO: The issue is whether or not this body will retain or delete or
reject that provision on National Territory. If we reject or delete that provision,
then we need not discuss the amendments. We have to settle first that
matter of deletion or retention of the provision on National Territory.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner presenting a motion or not?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am submitting an amendment by
deletion.
MR. SARMIENTO: I think the body has first to resolve whether my motion for
an anterior amendment is approved before I discuss or elaborate my reasons
for making an amendment by abolition.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that the body is entitled to know why the
Gentleman is asking for the deletion of the entire provision on National
Territory.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, this Commissioner deeply appreciates
the painstaking effort of Professor Nolledo and the members of the
Committee on Preamble and National Territory. We have discussed the
provision on National Territory for a number of days, and Professor Nolledo
intelligently defended the inclusion of a provision on National Territory.
However, Madam President, with all due respect to Commissioner Nolledo
and the members of the Committee on Preamble and National Territory, I
move for an amendment by deletion of the provision on National Territory for
a number of reasons:
First, the non-inclusion of that provision on National Territory will not, in any
way, diminish, alter and affect our sovereignty on any portion of Philippine
territory.
Second, a constitutional definition of territory has no effect of legitimizing a
territorial claim on anything not based on solid evidence or legal right.
Third, the non-inclusion of a provision on National Territory will not strain our
diplomatic relations with other countries in the concert of nations; and
Fourth, there is a trend in the family of nations today for the non inclusion of
a provision on National Territory. We made a survey of 81 constitutions, 52 of
these constitutions have no provision on national territory.
May. I mention a few of these countries? These include capitalist and noncapitalist countries, big and small countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola,
Bangladesh, Botswana, Brunei, Bulgaria, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Italy, Ivory
Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Cameroon, Chad,
Peoples Republic of China, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Peoples
Democratic Republic of Yemen, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji,
Finland, France, Gambia, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Greece,
Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran and many others. So that it is
the position of this humble Commissioner that the provision on National
Territory be deleted. Father Bernas will make a few additions.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
necessarily bind other nations because this is our own, we might say,
unilateral act. But there is always the mutual respect, perhaps courtesy, that
is accorded by one state to other states.
It is said that unless we have evidence of historical right or legal title, said
phrase would be useless or something to that effect. But even the ordinary
or rudimentary procedural law requires that before one can present
evidence, he must first make his allegation, alegata et probata. So, we
cannot be required to just present solid, conclusive evidence through
international documents before we state or reassert the boundaries of our
national territory.
The observation of Commissioner Rodrigo is pertinent. We have this provision
in the 1935 Constitution. It was rephrased in the 1973 Constitution. We have
the report of the Committee which has been, in a way, improved by the
amendment by substitution. I cannot understand why at this late stage we
will consider a motion for the entire deletion of the whole Article I on National
Territory.
The Acting Floor Leader is calling my attention that I am exceeding the
minutes, so thank you, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, we ask that Commissioner Nolledo be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, thank you.
The arguments of Father Bernas and Commissioner Sarmiento echoed the
arguments of the late Voltaire Garcia when he filed a motion to delete the
definition of the national territory in the 1971 Constitutional Convention. In
that Convention, I was the one who vigorously objected to the deletion. Now
it seems to me that based on the statements of Father Bernas that
international law will take care of everything, that we can delete the
definition of the national territory, then international law may necessarily
include the Law of the Sea of 1982 which contains provisions which are not
advantageous to our archipelago, to the Republic of the Philippines. That is
why if we delete the definition of the national territory, then the reservations
of Senator Tolentino made before signing the Law of the Sea would be
negated. I think we should be careful about this. Permit me, Madam
President, to read some portions only short paragraphs of my speech
when I stood up in the Constitutional Convention of 1971, vigorously
objecting to the deletion of the definition of the national territory. I said that:
I am particularly concerned about the Philippine waters.
The case of Sulu Sea, Mr. President, may well be the case of the Mindanao
Sea, the Sibuyan Sea and the Basilan Channel. The case of the Palawan
waters may well be the case of the waters that surround Panay Island,
Negros, Bohol, Leyte, Samar, and Romblon. I trust that we will, in this
Convention, reaffirm our sovereign rights over our territorial and internal
waters to obviate the fearful possibility of our country, now contemplated as
a compact territory, being dismembered by varying areas of open seas,
creating a definite and continuing threat to our national and integral security
and diminishing, to a great degree, our national unity.
If the boundaries, they ask, are already set forth in the Treaty of Paris, why
do we need to provide for them in the Constitution? I say, Madam President,
that if we adopt the report of our Committee and make it a part of our
Constitution, the ratification by our people, the Filipino electorate numbering
more than 25 million, will strengthen our stand on the extent of our
jurisdiction over our internal and territorial waters. It is not true that
constitutions of other nations of the world do not contain the definition of
their national territory. Constitutions of great nations like Australia, Belgium,
Federal Republic of Germany, Portugal, Switzerland, even Soviet Russia, India
and Venezuela contain lengthy definitions of their territories.
I trust that this Commission will seriously take into account the arguments
presented by the Vice-President and Senator Rodrigo. The people of Palawan
will not ratify this Constitution because when I ran for delegate in the
Constitutional Convention, they told me: You know the Sulu Sea is being
invaded by the Japanese vessels. Our navy is powerless.
So, I trust this body will seriously consider the arguments against the motion
to delete.
Thank you, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, we ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, Commissioner Sarmiento mentioned
several countries which do not include in their constitution a provision on
National Territory. He failed to mention, however, whether in the constitution
of these countries there was previously a provision on National Territory. I
suppose, originally, those countries never included any provision on National
Territory. But in our case, it is different. In 1935, we had to include a
provision on National Territory because according to some authors, our
intention was to bind the United States President not to claim Mindanao. In
the 1971 Constitutional Convention, our purpose was to enshrine in the
So, I will call the Commissioners attention to the fact that the other day
during the meeting of the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony, many fishermen from the Manila Bay and the Laguna Lake
complained about the poaching in our internal waters by Japanese and
Taiwanese fishing vessels. I think it will help the Philippine government and
even the countries of these poachers, if they know by this territorial
definition our national territory. We appreciate Commissioner Sarmientos
pointing out that about 52 out of 82 nations which had been surveyed did
not provide territorial definitions in their constitutions. Probably, they wrote
their constitutions before the Law of the Sea came up and was approved,
because if they were writing their constitutions today in the wake of this new
covenant among nations, I am sure most of them would reconsider in favor
of defining their national territories.
We will have to negotiate economic zones with our neighboring countries,
some of which have a history of being predatory powers. I think it would be
better if our territory be very definite, even if only from the standpoint of our
own perception of what makes up our national territory, as when we
negotiate with Taiwan. There is a portion in the economic zone where we
overlap with Japan because Okinawa is not so far from us. And then, of
course, we have to negotiate with Malaysia and Indonesia because our
economic zones likewise overlap. It would help if there were some bearings
that could be found in Article I of the Constitution concerning our own
perception of the limits of the metes and bounds of our national territory.
I would have welcomed very much the previous Bernas amendment to the
same territorial definition I think it influenced the Committee so that
this Article be purged of any element that would be considered offensive to
any of our neighboring countries. Therefore, I see no ground to fear this
could create diplomatic problems in the future.
It is on these grounds, Madam President, that I wish to appeal to
Commissioner Sarmiento to withdraw his proposed amendment by deletion.
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Azcuna
concerning his proposed amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: It is Commissioner Sarmientos amendment which is now
before the body.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair finds that the sponsor of the committee report
does not accept the amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento; therefore, we
have to put that to a vote.
Does Commissioner Sarmiento insist on a vote?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Father Bernas is recognized.
BERNAS: May I just say one line in response to what my colleague and
classmate Commissioner Azcuna has said.
The contention is that this will invalidate the reservation made by former
Senator Tolentino in the deliberations. The speech of former Senator
Tolentino was a historical speech which made specific reference to a
document that was in existence then, so that even if we delete these words,
the reference of former Senator Tolentino to that document would still be
subsisting.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I restate my motion to proceed to the voting
on the prejudicial question raised by Commissioner Sarmiento.
VIVA VOCE
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the motion to delete the Article
on National Territory proposed by Commissioner Sarmiento, say yea.
FEW MEMBERS: Yea.
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are against, say nay.
SEVERAL MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
VOTING
MR. DAVIDE: I move for a division of the House.
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the motion of Commissioner
Sarmiento, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against may please do the same. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 8 votes in favor and 25 against; so the motion is lost.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, we ask that the sponsor, Commissioner
Nolledo, be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I am pleased to inform Commissioner
Azcuna that on behalf of the Committee I am accepting his amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us proceed step by step. Commissioner Azcuna
withdrew, so let him restate his proposed amendment first.
MR. AZCUNA: May I be recognized, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: I now reiterate my amendment by substitution, copies of which
have already been distributed. This amendment is the result of the labors of
many Commissioners.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Azcuna please read his amendment.
MR. AZCUNA: Article I on the National Territory reads:
SECTION I. THE NATIONAL TERRITORY COMPRISES THE PHILIPPINE
ARCHIPELAGO, WITH ALL THE ISLANDS AND WATERS EMBRACED THEREIN,
AND ALL THE OTHER TERRITORIES NOW OR HEREAFTER BELONGING TO THE
PHILIPPINES BY SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OR LEGAL TITLE, CONSISTING OF THE
TERRESTRIAL, FLUVIAL AND AERIAL DOMAINS, INCLUDING THE TERRITORIAL
SEA, THE SEABED, THE SUBSOIL, THE INSULAR SHELVES AND THE OTHER
SUBMARINE AREAS OVER WHICH THE PHILIPPINES HAS SOVEREIGNTY OR
JURISDICTION. THE WATERS AROUND, BETWEEN AND CONNECTING THE
ISLANDS OF THE ARCHIPELAGO, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR BREADTH AND
DIMENSIONS, FORM PART OF THE INTERNAL WATERS OF THE PHILIPPINES.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I am a little bit confused about the whole
proceedings, so I rise on a point of parliamentary inquiry. Commissioner
Azcuna said that what we are considering now is the committee report.
Earlier, I raised a point of parliamentary inquiry to find out whether we are
now in the period of committee amendments. It is very clear on record that
we are no longer in the period of committee amendments; we are in the
period of individual amendments. However, it appears that the sponsor had
accepted the amendment by substitution of Commissioner Azcuna as a
committee amendment because it is now considered as part of the
committee report. I just want this clarified, because this amendment by
substitution which was accepted by the Committee, to my mind, is not really
an amendment by substitution. When we talk of amendment by substitution,
we practically overhaul the whole committee report. Here, we are only
considering very few words to be inserted or deleted.
Between territories and belonging, the proposal is to delete now or
hereafter; on line 10, to change historic to SOVEREIGN and to insert
TERRESTRIAL, FLUVIAL AND AERIAL DOMAINS.
To cut this parliamentary inquiry short, I would like to find out if we are really
considering a committee amendment as accepted or are we considering this
amendment of Commissioner Azcuna as an individual amendment which is
now being subjected to further amendments by the Members of the
Commission,
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 7:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 7:43 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, we ask that the sponsor, Commissioner
Nolledo, be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
R.C.C. NO. 23
Thursday, July 3, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 5:22 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Please make us worthy of the peoples trust. While in the past, we have in
our humble ways tried to help the less fortunate of our brothers and sisters,
we have largely been concerned with ourselves, our family, our interests.
Please inspire and give us strength, O Lord, to transcend our selfish needs
and aspirations so that we can fully offer ourselves towards the obliteration
of exploitation in our land exploitation coming from within as well as from
without.
As we remember tomorrow our special relations with a giant power,
enlighten us with Your Holy Spirit so that we can reflect thoroughly on the
issues concerned and arrive at the best approach that would maximally
serve the paramount national interest of our beloved Philippines; so that
when we face the judgment of history, our descendants will look back to this
Constitutional Commission with pride and admiration, and not with shame
and derision; and so that we, all in this Commission, can contribute to Your
Glory and that of our people. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Alonto
Aquino
Azcuna
Bacani
Bengzon
Bennagen
Bernas
RosarioBraid
Brocka
Calderon
Castrode
Colayco
Concepcion
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Guingona
Suarez
Sumulong
Present
Present*
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present*
Present
Present
Present
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyesdelos
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Treas
Uka
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Present
Present
Absent
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
NEW
CONSTITUTION
it is already on record that the word historic does not include Sabah, so I
am surprised why we still talk of Sabah when we discuss our national
territory.
Madam President, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, as the sponsor of the committee report,
may I be given only two minutes to make a statement opposing the
amendment of Commissioner Bernas?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to give the sponsor two minutes?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the sponsor is given two minutes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I made mention in the last meetings that
the term legal title does not only refer to our claim to Sabah but also to the
boundaries set forth in the Treaty of Paris and in other related treaties. I know
there are areas beyond the 12-mile limit which are recognized as national
waters under the Treaty of Paris over which we really do not exercise
effective jurisdiction. The term OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES
SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION may be susceptible to different interpretations.
So, I state that to eliminate the term historic right or legal title will be
retrogression of the highest order.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe the body is now ready to vote on the amendment
of Commissioner Bernas.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, there being no other interpellators on the
amendment proposed by Commissioner Bernas, I move for a vote on the
amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have a voting by the raising of hands instead of by
viva voce.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may we restate the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please.
FR. BERNAS: The amendment is: after the phrase and all other territories
add OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION.
VOTING
MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes. My vote is for the withdrawal of our claim to Sabah.
(Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to remind Commissioner Abubakar that
what is now before the body is the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Bernas.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, I now understand the issue. I vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: So, Commissioner Abubakar is in favor of the amendment.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Alonto . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MR. ALONTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Alonto is recognized.
COMMISSIONER ALONTO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. ALONTO: I vote yes to the amendment proposed by Commissioner
Bernas because I am most concerned with the interest and welfare of this
country.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Aquino . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
COMMISSIONER AQUINO EXPLAINS HER VOTE
MS. AQUINO: I vote yes on the clear and unmistakable understanding that
the contemplation of the proposed amendment does not exclude the
possibility of a claim to Sabah.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Azcuna . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
means our claim to Sabah. Historic not only to Sabah but to what we had in
the past and what we can have in the future. If our children, grandchildren,
and great-grandchildren will, in fifty years, find some historic documents
which would show we have a claim to a certain territory, then they may lose
it because we are taking from them their right to claim it. Also, the word
historic will put to naught the different treaties upon which our national
territory has been based.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER COLAYCO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
Colayco . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MR. COLAYCO: All the good reasons in favor of the amendment have been
heard, and wish to add this one. Because of this long pending claim, we have
not been able to foster a full commercial relationship with Malaysia.
I, therefore, vote for the amendment.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Concepcion . . . . . . . . . .
COMMISSIONER CONCEPCION EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. CONCEPCION: I vote no, the reason being that the expression OVER
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION implies a
waiver to whatever rights we have over Sabah. I am positive that at present
we are not exercising sovereign jurisdiction over Sabah. So, in that belief I
feel that the amendment is already a renunciation of our claim to Sabah.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Davide . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMISSIONER DAVIDE EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I vote no and my explanation is that the
proposal casts a cloud of doubt on the validity of our claim to Sabah. It is not
for us to vote for a waiver. We would be depriving the generations to come of
a basis for a claim to a territory over which we have a historic right. We will
have difficulty selling our work to our people, if we now waive our claim to
Sabah.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Foz . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMISSIONER FOZ EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. FOZ: I vote yes, because the amendment has nothing to do with Sabah.
We should allow the national leadership to address the question.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Garcia . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MR. GARCIA: I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Gascon . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Guingona . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMISSIONER GUINGONA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I have already expressed my views, but
with your kind permission I would like to add something to explain my vote. I
said earlier that we should make our provision on National Territory as
flexible as possible, principally by not using ambiguous or unclear terms
which may be subject to misconstruction. I am afraid that by attempting
indirectly, impliedly or inadvertently our claim to Sabah as some of us
believe would be the effect of this amendment, we would be outdoing the
Malaysians; we would be more Malaysians than the Malaysians themselves.
Madam President; under Article XII of the Manila Accord entered into among
the Federation of Malaysia, the Republic of Indonesia, and the Republic of the
Philippines, the Ministers said, and I quote:
The Ministers took note of the Philippine claim and the right of the Philippines
to continue to pursue it in accordance with international law and the
principle of pacific settlement of disputes. They agreed that the inclusion of
North Borneo, now Sabah, in the Federation of Malaysia would not prejudice
either the claim or any right thereunder.
My vote, therefore, Madam President, is no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Jamir . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MR. JAMIR: I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Laurel . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMISSIONER LAUREL EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. LAUREL: With the assurance of the proponent of the amendment,
Commissioner Bernas, that this does not do away with our future claim to
any particular territory, including Sabah, I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Lerum . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MR. LERUM: My vote is yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Maambong . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMISSIONER MAAMBONG EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. MAAMBONG: I vote yes, Madam President, but in so doing, in the
assumption that this proposed amendment will be carried, I would like to
suggest to the honorable sponsor and to the honorable proponent of the
substitute amendment in advance that there should be some realignment of
words since the amendatory phrase reads: OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION, and in the latter part of the
substitute amendment, on line 7, it also reads: areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Monsod . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MR. MONSOD: I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Natividad . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nieva . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All other territories refers to territories other than the islands presently
comprising the Philippine archipelago. So, sovereign jurisdiction applies to or
modifies only other territories and not any land or island or sea which is now
considered part of the Philippine archipelago.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Romulo . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMISSIONER ROMULO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. ROMULO: I vote yes, on the grounds that we have enough problems on
what is clearly now our territory, more so when we claim somebody elses
territory. Also, I vote yes on the assumption that the amendment does not
bar our claims to some future territory.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Rosales . . . . . . . . . . . Sarmiento . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMISSIONER SARMIENTO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. SARMIENTO: The Bernas amendment will not, in any way, diminish our
sovereignty over any territory. As a matter of fact, even without a provision
on National Territory or even without the Bernas amendment, our
sovereignty over any territory will not be affected. The Bernas amendment
should cause no fear among our brethren because it will not prevent now or
hereafter the Aquino government or future governments to pursue its claim
over any territory.
I, therefore, vote yes for the Bernas amendment.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER SUAREZ EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. SUAREZ: I might as well start with my vote. I vote against the
amendment. As a simple citizen of this country, I find it presumptuous to
waive our nations historic rights and legal title.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Sumulong . . . . . . . . . . .
do with any other nation. If the sponsor will not accept my amendment, I will
request a division of the House on this.
MR. CONCEPCION: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: One question occurs to me. A substantial number of those
who voted yes said, I vote yes in reliance upon the accuracy of the opinion
expressed by Mr. So and So that this amendment does not affect our claim to
Sabah. The question is: Can that answer be considered a yes vote? What
kind of a vote is it? Can we cast a conditional vote? When yes is conditional
or predicated upon the express assumption that the opinion or conclusion
expressed by another is correct, does not the giver of the answer manifest
his lack of adequate knowledge to answer without qualification?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
What is the pleasure of the Acting Floor Leader?
MS. AQUINO: May I be recognized in reply to the position made by Justice
Concepcion?
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: I voted yes and the contemplation of my affirmative vote was
the clear and unmistakable understanding that a vote in favor of the
amendment does not exclude any claim by way of historic right or legal title.
If it includes Sabah, that is fine. But it was not based on an assurance given
by any other proponent of the amendment. And I believe I speak on behalf of
the other colleagues who voted the same.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: What I heard from the many statements of the distinguished
Commissioners who voted yes was that their votes were conditional based
on the understanding or the assurance or whatever is being assured that this
does not conflict with the previous term, and would not preclude the possible
claim over Sabah.
I have heard many explanations of the votes, and to me, they are
conditional. Worse, this is based on the assurance of some other Members. I
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Acting Floor Leader move that the body proceed to
vote on Second Reading on this provision on National Territory as read by
Commissioner Azcuna?
BISHOP BACANI: May I just ask a question of the Acting Floor Leader? Does it
mean then that after three calendar days, we have to vote on this on Third
Reading?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, this voting is only on Second Reading and then
afterwards, the copies will be printed.
BISHOP BACANI: When will the copies be distributed? I myself would like to
register an objection to the motion. I would like to get the peoples idea on
this also. As it is proposed, we can float this first to the people and see what
its implications may be.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
At 5:14 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Present*
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present*
Present
Present
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Present
Present
Present
Present*
Present
Present
Present
Present
RosarioBraid
Brocka
Calderon
Castrode
Colayco
Concepcion
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present*
Present*
Present
Present
Reyesdelos
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
FOR
CONSUMER
PROTECTION
IN
THE
NEW
FOR
CONSUMER
PROTECTION
IN
THE
NEW
OF
Letter from Mr. Potenciano M. Alcala, Sr. of KBakyas, Bacolod City, proposing
provisions on free education up to high school level, land reform, the Sabah
issue, among others.
(Communication No. 117 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Gonzalo (Lito) Puyat of Manila, requesting a constitutional
mandate on youth and sports development.
(Communication No. 118 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Commissioner Mario D. Ortiz of the Commission on Elections,
transmitting the draft of proposals on election matters discussed by the
COMELEC en banc.
(Communication No. 119 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Antonio A. Lobitaa, proposing the elevation of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue to a constitutional body.
(Communication No. 120 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from the Senior Citizens Government Retirees Association of Agusan
del Norte and Agusan City, signed by Ms. Caridad V. Atega, proposing a
presidential form of government, bicameral legislature, retention of the US
bases, and limited autonomy of Muslim regions, among others.
(Communication No. 121 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Report of the mini Con-Com assigned to Iloilo City composed of President
Cecilia Muoz Palma, Commissioners Ma. Teresa F. Nieva, Efrain B. Treas and
Wilfrido V. Villacorta, entitled Highlights of the Public Hearing held at the
University of San Agustin Auditorium in Iloilo City on June 28, 1986.
(Communication No. 122 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
At 5:36 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Lorenzo M
Sumulong presiding.
(Communication No. 135 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The session is resumed.
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report No. 10 on Proposed Resolution No. 118, as reported out by
the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION
REQUIRING THE APPROVAL OR CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE
EFFECTIVITY AND VALIDITY OF TREATIES, EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS AND
RECOGNITION OF STATES OR GOVERNMENTS,
recommending its approval with amendments.
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Davide, Jr.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 11 on Proposed Resolution No. 234, as reported [out
by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
RESOLUTION FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE ARTICLE ON THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION REDEFINING THE POWER OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
recommending its approval with amendments.
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Regalado.
To the Steering Committee.
At 5:36 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Lorenzo M.
Sumulong presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The session is resumed.
The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 263
(Article on National Territory)
Continuation
MR. ALONTO: I move that we proceed to the voting on Second Reading of
Proposed Resolution No. 263, the Article on National Territory.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer, parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Suppose the no vote prevails, what happens? We shall
have no more provision on National Territory, or will the provision of the 1973
Constitution be deemed reinstated?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Will the Gentleman please repeat
his point of inquiry?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If the no vote prevails, in other words, the proposal is
rejected, does it mean that we will have no provision on National Territory as
considered and reported out by the Committee with some portions deleted,
and so, we are now in possession of the Article on Citizenship. I do not see
any need, therefore to go back to the proposed resolution of Commissioner
Davide. To save time, what we should do is to consider the proposed
resolution as submitted by the Committee, not the proposed resolution as
submitted by the author, Commissioner Davide.
FR. BERNAS: I completely agree with the Gentleman, and I submit to the
ruling of the Presiding Officer. I was going to start with the committee report
but I was told to go back by the Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then, in that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, may I suggest now
to the sponsor to consider the Article on Citizenship as reported out by the
Committee and not the original proposed resolution as filed by the author;
otherwise, we will be going back to the deliberations of the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): So, we will take up the resolution as
amended.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. So, we begin with Section 1.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Yes. We will consider all the
committee amendments as already approved by the Committee. And,
therefore, what is now before the Commission is the resolution as amended.
Is that correct?
FR. BERNAS: Yes. Mr. Presiding Officer, after this committee report was
formulated and after having listened to the Members of the Commission, the
Committee is prepared to accept the recommendation that on line 9 of the
first page of Resolution No. 7, as amended by the Committee, the word
ratification be changed to ADOPTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Is there any objection?
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I wish to be enlightened on what could be
the difference between ratification and adoption.
FR. BERNAS: There is no difference. The only wish that was expressed by
those who wanted to use adoption was that it is a reversal to the 1973
version.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, I have to ask that question because in the previous
amendments to the Constitution we really had two sets of facts: One, the
COMELEC announcing the result that the Constitution is ratified, and then a
proclamation by the President that the Constitution which was ratified be
deemed adopted.
FR. BERNAS: I think that was because in that exercise, the decree calling for
the plebiscite said that these amendments be effective upon the
announcement of the ratification.
MR. DAVIDE: That may be proper if the Article on Amendments, for instance,
on the new Constitution, will merely state that any amendment or revision of
the Constitution shall be deemed ratified upon the votes of so many of the
electorate as determined by the COMELEC after a plebiscite. But if it is not, I
think ratification is the proper word.
FR. BERNAS: I submit that to the vote of the body. For the Committee, it is
either way.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The amendment is on line 9. The
word ratification shall be changed to ADOPTION.
As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised the
hand.)
The results show 16 votes in favor and 11 against. So, the amendment to
change ratification to ADOPTION is approved.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee has no further changes to make on the
committee report.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be recognized for an
amendment.
there is perceived evidence or grounds for reopening the case. For these
reasons, I oppose the proposed amendment and that remedial measures be
left to ordinary legislation within the limits of the Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer, one last word. Precisely, that is the
amendment: SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION IN THE MANNER AND
WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW. In other words, we agree that it
should be left to future legislation.
FR. BERNAS: But the basic opposition we have is to the reopening of all the
cases en masse.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, no, we are not reopening. Future legislation shall
decide whether we shall reopen or not. There is nothing in the amendment
which says that those who obtain naturalization by decrees shall have their
naturalization reopened. 343 2
FR. BERNAS: In which case, the amendment is unnecessary because the
legislature can do it, anyway, even without that amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, but the purpose of this amendment is to express the
intent of this Commission that future legislation should do that.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. In the opinion of the Committee, the matter is covered by
Section 3 Philippine citizen ship may be lost or reacquired in the
manner provided by law.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I respectfully submit that we put this to a vote.
FR. BERNAS: I would agree with the proponent of the amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I add something?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Are there any further remarks?
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I say something before we vote?
The use of the word confirmation means that the naturalization is not
complete and, as the sponsor says, this applies to all these naturalization
cases by presidential decrees. It means that we will declare all of them now
as not yet complete, and that is why judicial confirmation is needed. The
added phrase provided by law only means that the way it will be confirmed
will be provided by law.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
number of aliens were naturalized not through the LOIs but through a
decree?
FR. BERNAS: By law, we mean here the decrees, not the LOIs referred to.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, I wanted that clarified because I
seem to recall that there was a statement made here that there were aliens
who were naturalized by letters of instructions, and that is not really a
correct statement. The letters of instructions which I mentioned only created
a special committee on naturalization which processed the applications and
on the basis of its recommendation, decrees were issued by the President
later on.
FR. BERNAS: I am in agreement.
MR. MAAMBONG: Finally, I have here the June 23, 1986 issue of the Malaya
which says:
President Aquino has directed the justice ministry and the solicitor generals
office to look into pending applications for naturalization by decree which
were left unacted upon by the ousted Marcos administration.
The Presidents order was issued to Justice Minister Neptali Gonzales and
Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordonez
The President told newsmen that depending on the results of the joint study,
meritorious cases may be given due course and the rest mothballed until the
Constitutional Commission drafting the new charter has laid down new
policies and guidelines on naturalization of deserving aliens.
The June 30, 1986 issue of the Philippine Tribune practically contains the
same thing. The question is that when one says those who are naturalized
in accordance with law, does this include those applicants who filed
application for naturalization through the LOIs mentioned LOI Nos. 270,
292 and 491? Probably, in a few days time, President Aquino might act on
the applications of previous applicants and when she issues a decree to this
effect, will they be covered by the provision Those who are naturalized in
accordance with law, considering that the applications were filed during the
time of President Marcos under a letter of instructions issued by the
President, but this time, the decree would be issued by President Aquino
based on those previous applications? Would they be covered by the term
law?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, I have no amendment to propose.
We now would seek to prevent any further action by any other agency of the
government to admit aliens by a mere decree or a letter of instructions. This
proposed amendment is the only way we can prevent future actions of such
kind as was done in the past regime.
MR. RODRIGO: If the amendment is approved, does this mean that those who
were naturalized by the presidential decree of President Marcos will lose their
citizenship?
MR. DAVIDE: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, because this; to be construed to
operate prospectively.
MR. RODRIGO: Prospectively. So, this is not aimed at a particular group of
persons?
MR. DAVIDE: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, but this is to govern future action.
Henceforth, no naturalization can be done by decree, only by judicial action.
MR. RODRIGO: With that clarification, thank you very much.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I say a few words?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The sponsor is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: I would oppose although not very vigorously, the amendment
for this reason: The background of the proposed amendment is the situation
of the Marcos regime when legislation was in the hands of one man. The
reason we had this mass naturalization by decree was because one man
possessed legislative power. If we insure that legislative power will not be
exercised by one person, then the abuses which resulted from the possession
of this legislative power by decree will no crop up in the future.
For that reason, I prefer to leave the provision as it is and allow the
legislature to naturalize directly.
I ask for a vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Those in favor of the amendment
proposed by Commissioner Davide, please raise their hand. ( Few Members
raised their hand.)
Those against the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
The results show 14 votes in favor and 19 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Vice-President Padilla be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Section 3 states: Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the
manner provided by law. Will the sponsor agree to change the words in the
manner to FOR ANY CAUSE? The reason is, the phrase in the manner
speaks more of the procedural aspect, whereas FOR ANY CAUSE provided by
law will consider the substantial reason for either loss or reacquisition.
FR. BERNAS: In my understanding of this proposal, the word manner
includes both substance and procedure. So, I would not accept the
amendment.
MR. PADILLA: After that line provided by law, will the sponsor consider this
addition: CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION MAY BE CANCELLED FOR ANY
OF THE CAUSES PROVIDED BY LAW AS GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF
APPLICANTS FOR NATURALIZATION.
I will explain briefly. Section 18 of the Revised Naturalization Law, otherwise
known as Commonwealth Act No. 473, provides for grounds for cancellation
of a certificate of naturalization, but most of these refer to naturalization
certificates obtained illegally or irregularly or for some other causes existing
at the time of the application or during the proceedings for naturalization.
Moreover, the Revised Naturalization Law provides grounds for qualification
(Section 2) and for disqualification (Section 4). An applicant for a
naturalization certificate must have all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications.
It may happen, Mr. Presiding Officer, that after an alien obtained a certificate
of naturalization, assuming the regular procedure under the Revised
Naturalization Law, he may, however, return to his old customs as an alien,
such that he will not mingle socially with Filipinos or he will not send his
children to our schools where Philippine history and other subjects are
taught.
In other words, he might not have had the disqualification at the time of the
application, but may acquire or go back to some cause for disqualification
after he had secured the certificate of naturalization. So that in addition to
the grounds under Commonwealth Act No. 63, we should recognize not only
those under Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, but also the
disqualifications for naturalization under Section 4.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, on general principle, I hold the proposition
not to make a distinction except on those cases where the Constitution
specifically makes a distinction between natural-born citizens and naturalized
citizens.
The proposal to my mind, in effect, allows the legislature to create laws
prejudicial to validly naturalized citizens, but not applicable to natural-born
citizens.
I am opposed to that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA: No, I am referring to the grounds presently provided for by the
Revised Naturalization Law on disqualifications.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, but if the applicant passed the test
with all regularity, then he enjoys that citizenship as firmly as a natural-born
citizen does.
MR. PADILLA: Even if, subsequently, he returns to his old ways, would that
have constituted disqualification?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, because those old ways could also be the ways of naturalborn citizens, and yet we do not disqualify them.
MR. PADILLA: It is hardly possible that a natural-born citizen would have any
of those disqualifications for naturalization.
FR. BERNAS: Some of the disqualifications are moral disqualifications; it is
quite possible for natural-born citizens to be immoral.
MR. PADILLA: No, the disqualifications are not exactly on moral standards;
they are more on social behavior.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, one of the qualifications is they must be of
good moral character.
MR. PADILLA: That is a qualification, but the opposite is not mentioned
among the disqualifications, I am now referring to disqualifications.
FR. BERNAS: I submit the matter to a vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: Was there a proposed amendment? I think the Vice-President
was only asking if the sponsor would be amenable to such an amendment.
no situation where we could disturb the status already acquired under the
1973 Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, Mr. Presiding Officer, even those born after
January 17, 1973 and before the adoption of this Constitution could opt to
elect Philippine citizenship under appropriate circumstances?
MR. PADILLA: No, because they were born after the effectivity of the 1973
Constitution, so the 1973 Constitution applies.
MR. SUAREZ: Meaning, if their fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines, automatically they also become Filipino citizens, Mr. Presiding
Officer?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, because we cannot change that status anymore by any
subsequent provision, even if it were included in the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: The proponent is suggesting that we revert to the provision
of the 1935 Constitution, his reason being that the situation of a Filipino
woman who marries an alien is different from that of a Filipino man who
marries an alien. He stated that normally the Filipino woman resides in the
country of her alien husband, unlike a Filipino man who marries an alien who
resides in the Philippines together with his alien wife. However, I know of an
instance where a Filipino husband resides in the country of his alien wife.
One example is that of my relative who, together with his alien wife, resides
in his wifes country. May I ask the Vice-Presidents comment on this.
MR. PADILLA: There is always such a situation. If the husband is under the
saya, then he follows the wife. But it is the husband especially a Filipino
husband who is the head of the family under the Civil Code, and who
chooses the residence or domicile after marriage.
MR. SARMIENTO: What if the husband is not under the saya? They both
love each other and they both decide to stay in that foreign place because of
greener pasture.
MR. PADILLA: That is all right. It will be covered -even by the 193 5
Constitution, that a child whose father is a citizen of the Philippines is a
Filipino. Of course, under the American law on citizenship, the principle of jus
soli is recognized, such that even if both parents are Filipinos if the child is
born in the United States, that child has a right to American citizenship.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the Gentleman yield to a few
questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: These provisions both of the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions
are based on jus sanguinis, is that right?
MR. PADILLA: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: We want to follow this principle of jus sanguinis. There is a
saying, which is a little naughty, that maternity is a certainty, paternity is an
act of faith. So, it is surer that the blood of the mother is in the child than
the other way around. So, is it not surer if we are to follow jus sanguinis, that
is, giving the child of a Filipino mother Philippine citizenship?
MR. PADILLA: The fact of birth, definitely, is even a ground for recognition
because the relation of maternity between mother and child is clear and
even conclusive. As regards the father, the relation of paternity and filiation
may not, as the Gentleman says, be very clear. But if they are married, that
is not only disputable or prima facie but also conclusive. I recall
Commissioner de los Reyes asked me before if this would discourage
marriage because a child born of a Filipino mother not married to the father
may not have legal paternity and filiation, so that the child adopts the
citizenship of the mother.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I interpose vigorous objection to the
proposal of the distinguished proponent. Despite the blandishments of
purism in citizenship, there is read into that proposal a very distinctive trend
towards discrimination against women. It is bad enough that the Constitution
is replete in language and formulations with sexual connotations, and it is
doubly tragic for us to constitutionalize this bias by way of a proposal after
we have practically enshrined in unmistakable formulations the principle of
jus sanguinis in the 1973 Constitution. This is, in fact, a recognition that
women have made relative successes in terms of having recognition of their
equal rights with men. For us to delete this provision would be retrogression,
nothing less. I believe that we have the opportunity now to expunge the
Constitution of all vestiges of sexual discrimination and of sexism.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I was warned that in proposing the 1935
Constitution, I would be misunderstood by the feminist movement for equal
rights. But I am convinced that when the learned and illustrious delegates
who framed the 1935 Constitution had that distinction made between fathers
and mothers, they were not discriminating against the fairer sex. I do not
believe that we can accuse them of discrimination, of inequality and other
unfair criticisms.
I admit that the 1973 Constitution had changed or, rather, combined
together fathers and mothers. But I do not believe that such a change was
an improvement over the 1935 Constitution, especially when we consider
that there are some relevant differences in the case of a father marrying an
alien and a mother marrying a foreigner. I believe in equal rights, especially
before the law, but not necessarily in equality. But by the very nature of man
and woman, there are certain differences that cannot be denied. One
important virtue or attribute of a woman, we might say, is that she is the
only one who can become pregnant and give birth to a child, not a man.
Therefore, we must give our mothers, our wives, our sisters and our
daughters due recognition, and even preferential respect.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be allowed to say something in
defense of the Committees proposal?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: We do not accept the proposed amendment.
The purpose of the committee report is to elevate the Filipino mother to a
level of equality with the Filipino father. First, we do not wish to punish the
Filipino mother and her child simply because she married an alien, in the
same way that we do not punish the Filipino father and his child when he
marries an alien. Second, the child has two options. In many cases, he will
have dual citizenship he may either choose the citizenship of his mother
or the citizenship of the father. He should be allowed to choose. The choice
must not be imposed on him. True, this can give rise to dual citizenship but
the naturalization law can provide that the child with dual citizenship must
make a choice within a certain period of time.
Finally, I think the principal argument against the existing provision is that
these mestizos, if we may call them, may occupy positions reserved for
natural-born citizens. But let us remember that a mestizo can be such
because he is either the child of a Filipino father and an alien mother or the
child of a Filipino mother and an alien father. Both of them are mestizos. If we
want to exclude mestizos, then let us exclude all mestizos, including the
children of Filipino fathers, and let us treat this in the appropriate article. For
instance, if the Gentlemen really wants to be a purist about this, he can say
in the Article on the President that the President must be a child of a Filipino
mother and father. But let us not handle that here.
Therefore, I request a vote on this, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: For all of the protestations of the proponent of his belief in the
ideals of sexual equality even as he would say that we should deny the
status of citizenship to the children of Filipino mothers married to aliens, I
would have to take exception to this monumental hypocrisy.
The issue here is, why do we have to discriminate against children of Filipino
mothers who are married to aliens? It does not fit well with the idea of
equality.
When the 1973 Constitution incorporated the phrase or mothers, it was
already a bonanza in terms of the manifold successes of women in their
struggle for equality, and to deny the children of Filipino mothers this right
now would be nothing less than oppression.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, in connection with the remark of the
honorable sponsor that his proposed amendment does not seek to
distinguish between the natural-born and otherwise, as far as I am
concerned, a child born of a Filipino mother is a natural-born citizen, in the
same way that a child born of a Filipino father is a natural-born citizen. The
distinction is not intended to deny or deprive the children of Filipino mothers
their status as natural-born.
In other words, the objection seems to give this interpretation to my
proposed amendment which merely restores the wisdom of the Members of
the 1935 Constitutional Convention that a child born of a Filipino father is
a natural-born citizen whereas the child born of a Filipino mother is not a
natural-born citizen. That is not the intention of the amendment.
FR. BERNAS: May we know what the amendment of the Gentleman is?
MR. PADILLA: As stated, instead of Section 1 (2) of the 1973 Constitution, we
revert to Section 1 (3) and (4) of the 1935 Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I suggest that we start with Section 1
(2) because it will not be necessary to move to Section 1 (3), if we settle
Section 1 (2). Therefore, as I understand it, the proposed amendment is,
Section 1 (2) should read: THOSE WHOSE FATHERS AND MOTHERS ARE
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES. Is that correct?
MR. PADILLA: No, no; it is not correct.
FR. BERNAS: What is the Gentlemans amendment?
MR. PADILLA: Section 1 (2) of the 1973 Constitution should be amended to
read as provided in Section 1 (3) and (4) of the 1935 Constitution, and I
quote: Section 1 (3). Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. (4)
Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the
age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
FR. BERNAS: We do not accept the Gentlemans amendment, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What is the pleasure of the Floor
Leader?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Concepcion would like to speak in favor of the
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Concepcion is
recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer, my remarks are not based on gender
but I start from the assumption that we still want to protect our natural
resources and the operation of our public utilities by reserving a big portion
thereof to Filipino citizens. Contrary to the allegation that the amendment
will result in inequality, perhaps it will result in equality, but adversely for the
children whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Why? It is
because the child whose mother is a Filipino but whose father is a foreigner
has two choices, and may avail of them at different times for different
purposes; whereas the Filipino will be left bereft of such choice.
Secondly, I think I can describe this better by referring to parity rights. We
granted parity rights to the Americans but did they really have the same
rights as the Filipinos? The Americans apparently have better rights than the
Filipinos since they have the capital which the Filipinos do not have. The
Americans are well-organized; we do not have that organization wherever
you go, the Filipinos always split. It is not perhaps the Americans but some
other nationalities who are better organized or are better financed than the
Filipinos. If the woman should follow the nationality of the husband, the
husband cannot avail of the nationality of the woman in order to exploit our
natural resources and operate public utilities. But if we maintain the
citizenship of the woman presumed from the very beginning to have
retained her citizenship then she is most likely to be exploited by the
husband.
And that is true with respect to the child. The child will have two choices.
When it suits him, he could invoke the nationality of his mother; but if it suits
him in some other respect, he can invoke the nationality of the father. It is
precisely against this inequality that I stand before this body tonight. Of
course, I should like to point the Commissions attention to the need of
correlating these provisions on Citizenship with the provisions on Natural
Resources. Are we still requiring preferential rights for Filipinos in connection
with the exploitation of our natural resources and the operation of public
utilities?
If this Constitutional Commission will eliminate the preference for Filipinos, I
would have no objection to the report of the Committee. But as long as we
give some preference for the Filipinos to the aliens, I would prefer the
amendment proposed by Commissioner Padilla. Why? I think it is no secret
that before 1935, there was barely any petition for naturalization. As soon as
the 1935 Constitution was approved, petitions for naturalization swarmed the
courts of justice because of the provision that Filipinos shall have preference
over the utilization and exploitation of natural resources. And that is still so
now. Their petitions did not only swarm our dockets but they found
themselves desirous to become Filipinos or else they would not have enjoyed
the right of preference for Filipinos over the conservation and utilization of
natural resources, and the operation of public utilities. However, since that
policy was abandoned by the 1973 Constitution, how many of our former
foreigners have sought naturalization either by judicial or some other process
which has increased their predominance over the Filipinos? So that now, the
list of the presidents of the Rotary club or the Lions club shows that the
names are foreign names. The overwhelming majority of those who go to the
movies, to the golf clubs and other clubs are of foreign parentage or foreign
nationality, before at least.
So, it is precisely to prevent the Filipinos from being discriminated against
that I favor the idea that only in case the father is a Filipino citizen should the
child be considered a citizen of the Philippines. When the mother is a Filipino
but she wants to follow the citizenship of her husband, let her say so. Let us
not presume that he would want to do so. But remember, he is not likely to
do that. In many cases, foreigners marry Filipino women precisely to enjoy
the benefits of the national law.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
wife. But we should also remember that in the pursuit of these activities, not
only did that particular foreigner improve the economic situation in the
Philippines, but also improved the lot of his Filipino wife and his children to a
point that in the end such an alien becomes a Filipino and has become more
of a Filipino than some other Filipinos.
So in that respect, it may not be fair to say, and it may not be fair to punish
and discriminate against the children of a Filipino woman married to a
foreigner, because those children are truly Filipinos, educated in the
Philippines and who know no other country but the Philippines.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Is the Commission ready to vote?
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong):Commissioner Concepcion has the
floor.
MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just say a word in reply to the
remarks of Commissioner Bengzon that we are not trying to punish anybody.
Marriage has its own effects and we have to accept its effects. But the
question is: Are we willing to give up the preference for Filipinos over our
natural resources?
That is the point I would want to stress.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Chair
amendment proposed by the Vice-President to a vote.
now
puts
Those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please do the same. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 10 votes in favor of the amendment and 29 against; the
amendment is lost.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Treas be recognized to present an
amendment.
the
First of all, I would like to know if, in the interpretation of the word law, the
Commissioner is referring to the denaturalization procedure under Section 18
of Commonwealth Act No. 473, which is the Revised Naturalization Law.
FR. BERNAS: I am referring to any denaturalization procedure which may be
provided by law. This is not intended to canonize any existing law but rather
to give authority to the legislature to pass future laws on this matter.
MR. MAAMBONG: Without prejudice to future legislation, may I just indicate
some of the laws which may be covered by the term law under Section 3?
FR. BERNAS: Perhaps I could just make a general answer. If there are laws
which are not yet repealed and are in existence, then they are covered by
this term.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then, let us start with Section 18 of Commonwealth Act No.
473 which provides for denaturalization procedure. Could that apply in the
present setting?
FR. BERNAS: If that has not yet been repealed, it still applies.
MR. MAAMBONG: It does not seem to have been repealed because it is still in
the Commissioners book. (Laughter)
FR. BERNAS: We can never tell what President Marcos repealed by decrees.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am referring to the 1983 edition of the commissioners
book.
I will proceed.
Commissioner Bernas book also mentions Commonwealth Act No. 63 which
was actually approved on October 21, 1936. The title of this Act reads: AN
ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE
LOST OR REACQUIRED.
Would this be covered by the term law under Section 3 as far as loss or
reacquisition of citizenship is concerned?
FR. BERNAS: As I say, if that Act has not yet been repealed either by the
legislature or by decree during the years when it could be repealed by
decree, then it is covered.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask this question in reference to Section I (7) of
Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended. I am now referring to the book
Citizenship, Naturalization, Immigration, and Alien Registration Laws,
MR. MAAMBONG: And all of these, without prejudice to future laws, are on
loss or reacquisition of citizenship?
FR. BERNAS: Correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is my last question: It is not ,indicated anymore in the
Commissioners book but I have here P.D. No. 725, issued on June 5, 1975,
which says: PROVIDING FOR REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN WHO HAD
LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO ALIENS AND OF
NATURAL-BORN FILIPINOS.
Would this provision be considered again in the interpretation of the word
law under Section 3 of the proposed Article on Citizenship?
FR. BERNAS; Again, we would consider it a law provided it has not yet been
repealed.
MR. MAAMBONG. In view of that reply, I will not proceed with my proposed
amendment.
Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Suarez be recognized to present an
amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. My amendment is very simple;
it is the deletion of the proviso in Section 4, lines 12 to 13, which reads:
Provided, That those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
Section 1, paragraph 3 above shall also be deemed natural-born citizens.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee prefers to retain this proviso just to even things
out in view of our approval of Section 1, paragraph 2.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
May I be allowed to discuss this matter?
I must confess that I had some agonizing moments before moving to delete
this particular proviso because I do not want to be accused of discriminating
against fellow citizens. I might be committing a disservice to them. However,
I feel rather strongly that my personal sentiments should not prevail over the
interests of the nation.
Let me cite an example. Under our Constitution, the President, VicePresident, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and members of the
Commission on Elections are required to be natural-born citizens. So, if this
provision would be approved, there will be frightening possibilities. We may
have a President whose father is named Jack Reagan who is based in
Washington, D.C. and is a member of the CIA. We may have a Vice-President
-whose name may be Naburo Nakasone, based in Tokyo, Japan. We may have
a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court whose father may be named Miguel
Gorbachev, a member of the KGB in Moscow. We may have a Chair- man of
the Commission on Elections whose father may be called Jose Deng Xiaoping
who is based in Peking.
This matter involves national interest and security. We should not allow
possibilities as frightening as these to be perpetrated in our Constitution. Our
sentiment in this regard is rather very strong and so we are respectfully
moving for the deletion of this particular proviso appearing in Section 4 of
the Proposed Resolution on Citizenship.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: May I say a few words. I have already adverted to that problem
earlier saying that certain offices should be occupied only by these very pure
citizens. We can attend to that when we come to the proper provisions. For
instance, when we are dealing with the qualifications of the President, we
could have a provision stating that the President must be born of a Filipino
father and mother. That is the appropriate place to put it in because that is
where the problem is. That can be taken care of in those specific portions of
the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ. So, is the Commissioner suggesting that we defer consideration
of my motion to delete?
FR. BERNAS: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that even if we
approve this proviso, it can still be attended to when we take up the
pertinent provisions on the Executive, the Legislative, the Judiciary and the
Commission on Elections especially when we start talking about the
qualifications of those who will occupy those offices.
In other words, when we reach those Articles, we will not just say naturalborn citizen, but we will specify what we mean.
MR. SUAREZ: That might pose complications, Mr. Presiding Officer. So, I would
not accept the suggestion of the proponent.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I submit this matter to a vote.
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote, may I have a few minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: The purpose of that proviso is to remedy an inequitable
situation. Between 1935 and 1973, when we were under the 19325
Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers but alien mothers were naturalborn Filipinos. However, those born of Filipino mothers but alien fathers
would have to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
and, if they do elect, they become Filipino citizens, yes, but not natural-born
Filipino citizens.
The 1973 Constitution equalized the status of those born of Filipino mothers
and those born of Filipino fathers. So that from January 17, 1973 when the
1973 Constitution took effect, those born of Filipino mothers but of alien
fathers are natural-born Filipino citizens. Also, those who are born of Filipino
fathers and alien mothers are natural-born Filipino citizens.
If the 1973 Constitution equalized the status of a child born of a Filipino
mother and that born of a Filipino father, why do we not give a chance to a
child born before January 17, 1973, if and when he elects Philippine
citizenship, to be in the same status as one born of a Filipino father
namely, natural-born citizen.
Another thing I stated is equalizing the status of a father and a mother vis-avis the child. I would like to state also that we should equalize the status of a
child born of a Filipino mother the day before January 17, 1973 and a child
born also of a Filipino mother on January 17 or 24 hours later. A child born of
a Filipino mother but an alien father one day before January 17, 1973 is a
Filipino citizen, if he elects Philippine citizenship, but he is not a natural-born
Filipino citizen. However, the other child who luckily was born hours later
maybe because of parto laborioso is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
I think we should equalize their status, so this proviso should be inserted. I
think it is a very just proviso.
Thank you very much
FR. BERNAS: The amendment of Commissioner Suarez is for the deletion of
the proviso on page 2, line 12.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): All those in favor of the proposed
amendment, please raise their hand. (Few members raise their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 7 votes in favor and 23 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The Floor Leader is recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: I move that we adjourn until tomorrow at two-thirty in the
afternoon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sumulong): The session is adjourned until
tomorrow at two-thirty in the afternoon.
R.C.C. NO. 25
Tuesday, July 8, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 2:50 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Teodulo C. Natividad.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present *
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolutions on First
Reading, Communications and Committee Reports, the President making the
corresponding references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 429, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
A PROVISION FOR THE EXPROPRIATION OF ALL AGRICULTURAL AND
NONAGRICULTURAL LANDS FRAUDULENTLY ACQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS AND THEIR CRONIES AND IMMEDIATE SUBJECTION OF THE SAME
TO URBAN AND RURAL LAND REFORM.
Introduced by Hon. Suarez, Tadeo and Sarmiento.
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 430, entitled:
RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE MILITARY BASES AGREEMENT BY 1991.
Introduced by Hon. Ople, Maambong, Natividad, de los Reyes, Jr., Bengzon,
Jr., Romulo, Calderon, Rigos, Treas, Uka, Jamir and Lerum.
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 431, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION IN THE NEW ARTICLE
ON SOCIAL JUSTICE THAT AS A RESTITUTION, THE VICTIMS OF CRIMES BE
GIVEN A SHARE OF FINES PAID IN COURT BY CONVICTED CRIMINALS.
Introduced by Hon. Natividad, Ople, Maambong and de los Reyes, Jr.
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 432, entitled:
May I explain,
amendment?
Mr.
Presiding
Officer,
the
reason
for
this
proposed
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if
he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Oples proposed amendment may cover the
situation contemplated by Commissioner Villacorta on assimilation of natural
citizens into the mainstream of Filipino culture. Am I right?
MR. OPLE: Yes, because this mandate of the Constitution, which will be
binding on a future legislature, will help arrest what they call a centrifugal
pull of a second allegiance for, let us say, overseas Chinese already enjoying
Filipino citizenship, and to that extent, therefore, they can be better directed
to measures that will assimilate them as real citizens quite apart from the
formality of citizenship of the Philippines.
MR. NOLLEDO: And the Gentleman said that dual citizenship is different and
apart from dual allegiance?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, could the Gentleman make a distinction between
citizenship and allegiance?
MR. OPLE: Double citizenship does not reflect on the motives of citizens
enjoying double citizenship. As I said, this is largely a function of accident of
mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil. But in the case of dual allegiance,
we presume a situation where the Chinese have already been naturalized
over the objection of Chief Justice Concepcion and yet they continued to
manifest, let us say, an extra allegiance either to Peking or Taipei.
I have cited some examples which I can augment, if time is available,
showing how dual allegiance has been exercised.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to be clarified on the words shall be dealt with by
law. Is the Gentleman talking of or contemplating prohibitions or regulation?
MR. OPLE: Dual allegiance, I think, has been a relatively unexplored problem
up to now. I do not think researchers, whether legal or sociological, have paid
real attention to this problem of dual allegiance. But at the level of the
common people the perception is already very keen. This has emerged as a
problem of very great implication for our country, our dignity, sovereignty
and security, and that is the reason I have asked the Committee as an
exception to their repugnance to amendments of this nature to receive
this amendment because then it cannot be said that we turned our backs on
a problem that the common people of this generation of Filipinos have
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if
he so desires.
MR. OPLE: I gladly yield to the Lady.
MS. AQUINO: Commissioner Ople seems to impress upon us that dual
allegiance is a sinister problem.
May we ask what the specific operative acts are that would amount to dual
allegiance which may merit the Commissions attention for them to be
placed in the draft?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I believe that on this occasion we can take cognizance of what
is common knowledge that every October on the occasion of the Double Ten,
very considerable delegations of Filipino-Chinese go to Taipei. According to
some witnesses who had been there and this is also a matter of common
knowledge when the oath of allegiance was administered, a good number
of these Filipino-Chinese, maybe in the hope that they would not be found
out, also raised their hands. I already spoke of this very remarkable
phenomenon where the Filipino-Chinese in the Philippines were represented
in the Legislative Yuan in Taiwan. I have also referred to the fact that until
recently the Overseas Chinese Council, an associate legislative body,
functioned in Peking and the Filipino-Chinese were also represented there,
together with the other Chinese overseas communities in Southeast Asia.
These common-knowledge practices raised a question of dual allegiance. I
am not speaking of dual citizenship, but of a situation where Chinese
naturalized as Filipinos seem to continue to subscribe to another allegiance
than that required by their Filipino citizenship.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the proponent of the amendment seems
to classify dual allegiance as a mala in se. It is an act that is by itself
prohibited without requiring a law. Is that the intention of the proponent?
MR. OPLE: Yes, it is that, plus my submission that as a political and
sociological problem, the problem of dual allegiance has not been sufficiently
explored and investigated, maybe because it is not socially very comfortable
and convenient to look into this more deeply. That the problem exists is,
however, acknowledged by many people, and I really see no reason why the
Committee on Citizenship should not make an exception of this proposed
amendment and consider it for inclusion as a separate section in the Article
on Citizenship since it does address what many people think is a
fundamental problem with implications for our sovereignty and security at
this time.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, if it is the intention of the proponent to
classify dual allegiance almost like a crime, as it is apparently the
MR. OPLE: I do not know how American law would construe that. But I think if
we reverse the example where Filipino-Chinese join in the mass oath-taking
and pledge of allegiance in Taipei on the occasion of the Double Ten, which is
equivalent to Filipinos naturalized as American citizens who swear allegiance
to the United States, then that would be one of the acts, I suppose, that
could be encompassed by the phrase dual allegiance. But I have been very
candid from the beginning that this proposed amendment was inspired by a
now general perception in our country that some of the Chinese we have
naturalized continue to show an unsettled kind of sentiment about this
country that they continue to manifest in several ways what appears to be a
second allegiance to another country close to them by history and by
consanguinity. This is exactly what we hope is a very real problem this
proposed amendment seeks to address through a constitutional provision.
MR. REGALADO: Would the Commissioner, therefore, be more prone to
underscore the concept of dual allegiance from the standpoint of a
manifestation of political rather than of economic allegiance to another
country?
MR. OPLE: Political allegiance is broad enough to accommodate the economic
aspect. I speak in this memorandum to the Bernas Committee of the fact
that some of the commercial places in Taipei, including the worlds biggest
hotel, are already owned by Filipinos of previous Chinese citizenship. If a
future assembly investigate this phenomenon, then, I would discover
interesting facts about dual allegiance which is exactly what we hope to put
under constitutional and legislative control through this proposed
amendment.
MR. REGALADO: Since the sponsor of this resolution opts to have this the
subject of ordinary legislation instead of to take official cognizance of this
matter and try to vote for a conclusion on the basis of unknown premises,
would it not be better instead and I am sure the members of our future
legislature will have by themselves taken cognizance of our concern
expressed here on this floor if we trust in their sagacity to take it upon
themselves to make a legislative study on the matter because then they
have more facilities, more time and more data they could collate?
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are not pre-empting the future
legislature; we are merely giving them a mandate. It is the task of a
constitution to send mandates for the future and I think this issue is
important enough to be a subject of one of those mandates.
MR. REGALADO: Will the Commissioner recommend that if the future
legislative body eventually comes up with what it conceives as the proper
conception of dual allegiance, that fact would also be a sufficient ground to
divest that naturalized Filipino citizen of his citizenship?
MS. AQUINO: Since the sponsor did not accept the proposed amendment,
and on the observation that there are no other discussants on the proposed
amendment, I move that we proceed to vote on the amendment of
Commissioner Ople.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I still have an amendment to the proposed amendment, if the
proponent will accept.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Will the Gentleman please state
his amendment to the proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment is, after ALLEGIANCE, insert the
words OF CITIZENS then delete OBNOXIOUS TO CITIZENSHIP, and in lieu
thereof insert the word PROHIBITED; between WITH and BY on the third
line, insert the word SEVERELY, so that the entire proposed new section
would read: DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS PROHIBITED AND SHALL BE
DEALT WITH SEVERELY BY LAW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What does the proponent of the
amendment say?
MR. OPLE: I accept the first part of the amendment and decline the rest.
With the permission of those who have submitted their previous
amendments and were accepted, the following is a partial satisfaction of
Commissioner Davides proposed amendment: DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF
CITIZENS IS PROHIBITED AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW.
MR. DAVIDE: As modified by the proponent himself, I will accept. But it is
understood very clearly that after ALLEGIANCE we have to insert the words
OF CITIZENS.
MR. OPLE: There are some objections from other Members who have a
vested right on amendments already approved. They asked why national
interest has disappeared from the text. And, therefore, especially upon the
prompting of Commissioner Nolledo and following what they consider as the
trend of general advice among kibitzers around me, I am now compelled to
decline the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide and will adhere to
the original amendment, as amended.
MR. DAVIDE: Then may I be allowed to explain?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Chair is suspending the
session to give the proponent of the amendment and all those who want to
introduce amendments to the amendment time to talk these things over.
It was 4:01 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:02 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The session is resumed.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople is
recognized.
MR. OPLE: With the permission of the sponsor, may I read the final text of
this proposed amendment, as amended, and it reads as follows: DUAL
ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS INIMICAL TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND
SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW.
I move for a vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Now that the amendment has
been amended, is the proponent still insisting on his stand?
FR. BERNAS: The position of the proponent is that this should be a matter for
ordinary legislation and need not be provided for in the Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): So we put this to a vote.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Those in favor of the Ople
amendment, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand)
Those against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 23 votes in favor and 12 against; the Ople amendment, as
amended, is approved.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask if there are other proponents
of amendments to Committee Report No. 4.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Who are the other proponents of
amendments? Are there anymore?
Commissioner Bacani is recognized to introduce amendments. Commissioner
Treas will follow.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask the proponent if he would agree with an
amendment which would say at the end: BOTH NATURALIZED AND NATURALBORN CITIZENS SHALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS BEFORE THE LAW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the reaction of the
sponsor?
FR. BERNAS: This is a matter that was taken up by the Committee. As a
matter of fact, there was a specific proposal to this effect. The position of the
Committee is that this is unnecessary because it is established in existing
jurisprudence that natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens are to be
treated equally except in those cases where the Constitution itself makes a
distinction. The position of the Committee is that this is unnecessary; it is
adequately covered by the equal protection clause of the Bill of Rights.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but the intention of the amendment is that even in
those cases which are mentioned by the Constitution, the distinctions would
be eliminated. The Constitution would not place such distinctions because
they would seem to be classifying citizens into first-class and second-class
citizens.
FR. BERNAS: In such a case, therefore, the position would be that this matter
should be taken up when a distinction is made in a specific provision. For
instance, when we come to the Article on the Executive, if the proponents on
the Executive say that a President must be a natural-born citizen, then that is
the time to propose the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: Is it not possible to decide that matter in advance in this
Article?
FR. BERNAS: I would prefer not to preempt the other committees.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any other amendment?
Commissioner Treas is recognized.
MR. TREAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, the sponsor will recall that yesterday I
presented an amendment to subsection 3 of Section 1 which he asked to be
deferred pending consideration of Section 4. May I now know the status of
my proposed a amendment?
MR. TREAS: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the amendment? Will the
Gentleman please state his amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: May I know the proposed amendment, please?
MR. TREAS: The proposed amendment on Section 3 should read: THOSE
BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1973 WHOSE MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND UPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY ELECT PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to know the status of children who were born
before January 17, 1973 but because they have not yet reached the age of
majority, they have not elected Philippine citizenship. Are they covered?
MR. TREAS: They are covered.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, they are covered.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, they will be considered natural-born citizens.
MR. TREAS: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. So, my position is, unless somebody in my Committee
objects to that amendment, I would accept the amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, if there are no other amendments, I move
to terminate the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 7 ON SECOND READING
(Article on Citizenship)
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we proceed to vote on
Committee Report No. 4, as amended, on Second Reading.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
We shall now vote on the Article on Citizenship.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we request the sponsor to read the
entire Article, as amended.
FR. BERNAS: The Article will now read:
Article
CITIZENSHIP
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who upon
reaching the age of majority elect Philippine citizenship; and
4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their
citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law,
to have renounced their citizenship.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner
provided by law.
Section 4. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship: Provided, has That those who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with Section 1, paragraph 3 above shall also be
deemed natural-born citizen.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and
shall be dealt with by law.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is the body now ready to vote?
Those in favor of the Article on Citizenship, as amended, please raise their
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 35 votes in favor and 3 against.
Proposed Resolution No. 7, the Article on Citizenship, as amended, is hereby
approved. (Applause)
May we know from the Acting Floor Leader what is next?
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 322
(Article on Amendment or Revision)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MS. AQUINO: I move that we consider Committee Report No. 7 on Proposed
Resolution No. 322 as reported out by the Committee on Amendments and
Transitory Provisions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 322 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of the
proposed resolution without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole
text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 322, entitled:
AN
ARTICLE
(The following is the whole text of the substitute resolution per C.R. No. 7.)
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 7
The Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions to which was
referred Proposed Resolution No. 148, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION
PROVIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS AMENDMENTS,
AN
ARTICLE
has considered the same and has the honor to report it back to the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommendation that Proposed
Resolution No. 322 prepared by the Committee, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION
PROVIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS AMENDMENTS,
AN
ARTICLE
AN
ARTICLE
AMENDMENT OR REVISION
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
proposed:
(a) by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members;
or
(b) by a constitutional convention; or
(c) directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in Article
___ Section ____ of the Constitution.
Section 2. The National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its
Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its
Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate.
Section 3. Any amendment to, or revision of this Constitution shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be
held not earlier than sixty days and not later than ninety days after the
approval of such amendment or revision.
MS. AQUINO: May I request the recognition of the sponsor, Commissioner
Suarez.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Chair declares a suspension
of the session.
It was 4:14 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:31 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that the sponsor, Commissioner Suarez, be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes). The sponsor, Commissioner
Suarez, is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER SUAREZ
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Constitutional Commission, in behalf of the
Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, I would like to ask for
the consideration by the Commission of Committee Report No. 7 concerning
the matter of amendment or revision to the Constitution. It is proposed that
said Article on Amendment or Revision will read as follows:
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
proposed:
(a) by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members;
or
(b) by a constitutional convention; or
(c) directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in Article
___ Section ____ of the Constitution.
Section 2. The National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its
Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its
Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate.
Section 3. Any amendment to, or revision of this Constitution shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be
held not earlier than sixty days and not later than ninety days after the
approval of such amendment or revision.
Mr. Presiding Officer, the proposal is substantially adopted from the
provisions on Amendments appearing under the 1973 Constitution, and we
took into account also the draft submitted by the scholars of the University of
the Philippines, but we introduced one innovative method of amendment and
this was sponsored by the Honorable Ople. We are referring to the third
method of amendment by a direct action of the people themselves through
the system of initiative.
We would like to call the attention of the Commission to Proposed Resolution
No. 161 authored by the Presiding Officer this evening, governing the system
of recall, initiative and referendum. This has been submitted to the
Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and
Human Rights. So, our innovative method of proposing amendments to the
Constitution by way of initiative necessarily must have to depend upon the
feel is more appropriate under the circumstances. And so, the Members will
notice that under Section 3, it is proposed that any amendment or revision to
this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in
a plebiscite.
The other issue resolved was the matter of determining when the plebiscite
should be conducted or held. Again, we go back to the incidents which
happened during the Marcos regime wherein many proposals to amend such
a vital and supreme document as the Constitution were submitted to the
people without giving them adequate opportunity to study thoroughly and at
length said proposals. So, it was proposed that a period be established as to
when the plebiscite should be held. We came up with the proposal that such
a plebiscite should be held not earlier than 60 days and not later than 90
days after the approval of such amendment or revision. The obvious purpose
is to enable the voting population to study and analyze the proposals
submitted for the amendment of our Constitution.
The other matter that was taken up before the Committee was the distinction
between the word revision and amendment. Proposals were submitted
that only the word amendment should be used just like in the 1973
Constitution. In our proposal, this Article has been captioned AMENDMENT
OR REVISION.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer. I am sorry to interrupt.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: May I ask a question?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: In the report of the Committee, there are two proposed
resolutions: Proposed Resolution Nos. 322 and 148.
The sponsor mentioned initiative as one of the proposed methods of a
amending, is that right?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: That is in Proposed Resolution No. 322?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: But that is not in Proposed Resolution No. 148?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Does Commissioner Suarez want
to finish his sponsorship speech or does he agree to be interpellated in the
course of his speech?
MR. SUAREZ: May I now lead Commissioner Rodrigo to the right direction?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, please.
MR. SUAREZ: I am using Proposed Resolution No. 322 as my guide in
discussing the matter.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may proceed with
his sponsorship speech on Proposed Resolution No. 322.
MR. SUAREZ: One more point, and we will be through.
We mentioned the possible use of only one term and that is, amendment.
However, the Committee finally agreed to use the terms amendment or
revision when our attention was called by the honorable Vice-President to
the substantial difference in the connotation and significance between the
said terms. As a result of our research, we came up with the observations
made in the famous or notorious Javellana doctrine, particularly the
decision rendered by Honorable Justice Makasiar, wherein he made the
following distinction between amendment and revision of an existing
Constitution: Revision may involve a rewriting of the whole Constitution. On
the other hand, the act of amending a constitution envisages a change of
specific provisions only. The intention of an act to amend is not the change of
the entire Constitution, but only the improvement of specific parts or the
addition of provisions deemed essential as a consequence of new conditions
or the elimination of parts already considered obsolete or unresponsive to
the needs of the times.
The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment to the 1935 Constitution. It
is a completely new fundamental Chapter embodying new political, social
and economic concepts.
So, the Committee finally came up with the proposal that these two terms
should be employed in the formulation of the Article governing amendments
or revisions to the new Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: Under normal circumstances, yes. But we know what happened
during the 20 years under the Marcos administration. So, if the National
Assembly, in a manner of speaking, is operating under the thumb of the
Prime Minister or the President as the case may be, and the required number
of votes could not be obtained, we would have to provide for a safety valve
in order that the people could ventilate in a very peaceful way their desire
for amendment to the Constitution.
It is very possible that although the people may be pressuring the National
Assembly to constitute itself as a constituent assembly or to call a
constitutional convention, the members thereof would not heed the peoples
desire and clamor. So, this is a third avenue that we are providing for the
implementation of what is now popularly known as the peoples power.
MR. BENGZON: In view of the awakening of the people of the Philippines,
does the Gentleman agree that the events that took place in the past few
years are very unlikely to be repeated in the future?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman may be right, but it is also likely that these
could again happen in the near future.
MR. BENGZON: Because we seem to be laboring under that particular
syndrome of the traumatic experiences we had in the last 20 years. Perhaps,
our minds and our eyes are just focused on those events and we forget that
there are other circumstances that will take place.
I was about to suggest that if, indeed, Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b) are
sufficient avenues and channels for the people of the Philippines to amend
the Constitution as they have been historically tested without regard to
the events of the recent past perhaps the Committee might reconsider its
decision in just confining itself to proposing Section 1, paragraphs (a) and
(b), and doing away with paragraph (c). Is there a possibility that the mode
of legislation by initiative will just be confined to the Article on the
Legislative?
MR. SUAREZ: We would rather leave that to the Commission.
MR. BENGZON: So, at the proper time, perhaps during the period of
amendments, this could be introduced.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: I thank the distinguished Commissioner.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may yield, if he so
desires.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, with pleasure to a member of our Committee.
MR. OPLE: Providentially, the previous remarks of Commissioner Azcuna and
Commissioner Davide encouraged me to refer once again to this question on
initiative as a new mode for proposing amendments to the Constitution. The
sponsor was very kind to refer earlier to the fact that I sponsored this
additional mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution in the
Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
It looks like the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions had
been very courteous to the Committee on the Legislative and had hoped that
this mode of proposing amendments through initiative, in addition to the
older and traditional modes provided in the 1973 Constitution, could be
dependent on the approval of a resolution in that body pertaining to the use
of initiative, referendum and recall, with respect to legislation.
Will the Chairman of the Committee now consider the imminently reasonable
proposals of Commissioners Azcuna and Davide to keep this an independent
provision of the Article on Amendment so that this will not wait upon the
action of the Legislative Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, we will entertain that. As a matter of fact, by way of
information, the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions is
scheduled to meet tomorrow morning between nine oclock and twelve
oclock and we will take that matter up.
MR. OPLE: Moreover, Mr. Presiding Officer, I think Commissioner Bengzon had
earlier raised the question of whether this new mode to proposing
constitutional amendments which is untested could be deleted from the
Article on Amendment on the ground that we may be experimenting with a
mode of amendment that has no support in the past and which may be in
the form of exaggerated reaction to what happened in the past. In response
to Commissioner Bengzons doubts, I think this is just the correct time in
history when we should introduce an innovative mode of proposing
amendments to the Constitution, vesting in the people and their
organizations the right to formulate and propose their own amendments and
revisions of the Constitution in a manner that will be binding upon the
government. It is not that I believe this kind of direct action by the people for
amending a constitution will be needed frequently in the future, but it is good
to know that the ultimate reserves of sovereign power still rest upon the
people and that in the exercise of that power, they can propose amendments
or revisions to the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: The mechanisms were not discussed in the manner the
Gentleman brought out this evening although that is a very valid point. We
hasten to add, however, that the methods provided under paragraphs (a), (b)
and (c) may be availed of one after the other. In other words, one does not
preclude the exercise of the other. They could even be availed of
simultaneously, if necessary, but the matter of appropriation is indeed
essential.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the distinguished sponsor yield to
a few questions?
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: I hope the sponsor does not mind my interpellating him at
this point, considering that I am a member of his Committee. But the other
statements of the Commissioners before me provoked my thoughts.
I will advert to the point in the Article referring to the ratification process by
the majority votes of the electorate.
The sponsor mentioned earlier that the Committee used the word
plebiscite in Section 3 in contra-distinction with the word used in the 1935
Constitution which was election. I suppose the sponsor followed the 1973
Constitution in the use of the word plebiscite and not the 1935 Constitution
in the use of the word election because election connotes a process
whereby a body of qualified voters in the country whether it be
nationwide, by district, by province, by municipality or barangay choose
public officials.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: The sponsor also appropriately used the word plebiscite
because the book I am using here which is incidentally my own defines
plebiscite as a direct voting by the qualified electors in regard to an
important public question, usually to ratify a proposed constitution. Would
that be a correct statement?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Section 2 reads:
. . . by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such
a convention to the electorate.
In Section 2, the word election or plebiscite was not used. The question
here is: What is the intendment of the Committee? Under Section 2 when the
National Assembly submits the question to the electorate of whether to call a
convention, would this be through election or a plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: It is supposed to coincide with the election, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, in Section 2, if there is no election, the
question of calling a constitutional convention cannot be submitted in a
plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: That is the meaning sought to be conveyed in connection with
this particular section.
MR. MAAMBONG: We have a difficulty here, because the submission of the
question of whether or not to call a convention might coincide with a new
term of office of elective public officials. In other words, if there is an
election, for example, for public officials in 1990, and in 1991 there is a need
to present to the people the issue of whether we should call a constitutional
convention or not, assuming that the term of office of the elective public
officials will end in 1996, we will have to wait five or six years before we can
submit the issue of calling a constitutional convention. Is that the
intendment, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentlemans statement and conclusion under this section
are correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: Therefore, in the period of amendments, would the
Committee be open to a suggestion to amend Section 2 to accommodate
either election or plebiscite in the matter of calling a constitutional
convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Without waiting for an election?
MR. MAAMBONG: Without waiting for an election which may take five years.
MR. SUAREZ: We will entertain such an amended proposal, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
We will now go to Section 3. In Section 3, the word plebiscite is again used.
Does it also mean that under Section 3, if there is an incoming election we
cannot submit the amendment or revision of the Constitution to the
electorate together with that election? Under Section 3, the wording is very
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection to the
motion for deferment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move to adjourn the session until tomorrow
at 2:30 p.m.
It was 5:50 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
R.C.C. NO. 26
Wednesday, July 9, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 2:55 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Jose N. Nolledo.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. NOLLEDO: O Dakilang Diyos, hinihingi po namin ang Inyong awa,
pagmamahal at pagkalinga sa aming makasaysayang pagbalangkas at
pagbuo ng isang Saligang Batas na tunay na maka-Pilipino at maka-tao,
isang Saligang Batas na tumatangkilik sa mga karapatang pambayan at
hahango sa kahirapan ng marami naming mamamayan, isang Saligang Batas
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present*
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Azcuna
Bacani
Bengzon
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyesdelos
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present
Present
Present*
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a draft shown to
them and they are asked whether or not, they want to propose this
constitutional amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that proposal and
pass it around for signature.
MR. RODRIGO: Pass it around?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: So it is possible it be by one man.
MR. SUAREZ: One man or a group of men.
MR. RODRIGO: A group of men or ordinary citizens can prepare the draft and
pass it around for signature.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: And once they sign the draft, it is final. They cannot amend it
anymore.
MR. SUAREZ: Probably, they could.
MR. RODRIGO: It is our experience right in this hall that in proposing
amendments we are very careful about every word, even the comma. So,
how can these 2.5 million signatories participate in the drafting of the
amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: The mechanical details could be ironed out later, but
substantially the democratic process will have to be followed; meaning, if a
person has a proposal for amendment, he has to market its acceptability
among ten percent of the electorate.
That is the general idea behind the introduction of this particular section.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, this proposed amendment will be
distributed throughout the Philippines, in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: This may be prepared by one man or a group of men who will
gather signatures. The sponsor said that amendments may be proposed.
How can these be proposed? By 10 percent or 20 percent of the electorate.
Suppose somebody wants to change a word before signing the proposal, say,
obnoxious to inconsistent, who will decide whether or not change it?
MR. SUAREZ: What probably would be the ultimate test of any particular
proposal for the amendment of the Constitution under this system is its final
presentation to the Commission on Elections for submission in the plebiscite
called for the purpose, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, but who will draft that proposal?
Will the 2.5 million signatories have a hand in the drafting of that proposal?
MR. SUAREZ: Not necessarily, because this contemplates a situation where
the proposal will be accepted by the required percentage. It does not require
that the signatories would be coauthors of that proposal. They only signify
their conformity to it and this ultimately will have to be submitted to the
people for ratification in a plebiscite called for the purpose, Madam
President.
The process of submitting the proposal for acceptance by the required
percentage of voters is different from submitting the accepted proposal for
ratification by the people in a plebiscite.
MR. RODRIGO: That is correct. But if the National Assembly (by a vote of
three-fourths of its Members) or a constitutional convention or constitutional
commission like ours makes the proposal, all the members participate. In
other words, the ones who propose would study, debate, participate and vote
on this.
What if the ten percent of the electorate will propose the amendment? Does
the sponsor mean it is possible that only one man or a group of men will
draft the proposal and have it signed by the people without their right to
amend, revise or change it or participate in drafting it?
MR. SUAREZ: If 10 percent of the electorate signifies its acceptance and
conformity to the proposal submitted by one man, that is just beautiful,
Madam President. That means that the proposal of that single individual has
been marketed for acceptability to the required percentage of the electorate.
MR. RODRIGO: So in the final analysis, we can say that this is a proposal not
studied, neither drafted nor participated in by the people through initiative
because initiative means the people act directly.
MR. SUAREZ: One might accept that situation, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Now, Section 4 states:
Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sixty days and not later than ninety days after the approval of
such amendment or revision.
In the case of a proposal made by the National Assembly or by a convention,
we know the date of its approval. How about that of the 10 percent of the
electorate? When is the date of approval?
MR. SUAREZ: That is a very relevant question which was taken up during the
committee meeting this morning. The idea, Madam President, although we
did not include it in the draft proposal, is that in the case of proposals
submitted through initiative, the operative period would be after the
Commission on Elections has certified that the required number of registered
voters has been obtained. This was the suggestion, but we thought it was
wiser to throw this matter to the body at the appropriate time.
MR. RODRIGO: I have another question. A constitution is supposed to be the
act of the sovereign people of the Philippines. The only requirement in this
committee report is at least 10 percent of the electorate must petition. Let us
say 10 percent of the electorate of the whole Philippines petitioned but this
10 percent came only from Metro Manila, would that be sufficient?
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, yes, Madam President, although again in the
committee meeting this morning, that situation was precisely explored and
ideas were given to the effect that at least a certain percentage of the
electorate from the provinces should sign the proposal. There were
suggestions that this percentage could amount to something like five percent
from each province. Again, we leave this to the body to determine later on.
MR. RODRIGO: Which body?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commission, Madam President, by way of amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: During the period of amendments.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: So, there will be a provision to that effect in Section 2 of the
proposed resolution?
MR. SUAREZ: If that is the sense of the Commission, yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: But if nobody presents that amendment, does not the
Committee think that that amendment should be incorporated in this
section?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee could very well submit that as a committee
amendment for consideration by the Commission.:
MR. RODRIGO: Let me go back to a previous question. The Committee is not
happy with, let us say, 10 percent of the votes coming from only one region
like Metro Manila.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: But the way Section 2 is worded now, that is possible and
admissible.
MR. SUAREZ: That situation is theoretically possible that all of the 2.6 or
2.7 million registered voters would come from one area, say, from Luzon or
from Metro Manila.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. If it is the National Assembly that proposes the
amendment, the whole Philippines is represented, is it not?
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: And if it is a constitutional convention which proposes the
amendment, the whole Philippines is also presented.
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Whereas, if the people want to act directly, Luzon, Visayas
and Mindanao might not be represented at all in the 10 percent electorate
who proposes to amend the Constitution, is that correct?
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am happy that the Committee on
Amendments and Transitory Provisions decided to retain the system of
initiative as a mode of amending the Constitution. I made a survey of
American constitutions and I discovered that 13 states provide for a system
of initiative as a mode of amending the Constitution Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon. The initiative for ordinary laws
only is used in Idaho, Maine, Montana and South Dakota. So, I am happy that
this was accepted or retained by the Committee.
About the matter of drafting, questions were raised as to who will draft the
proposals of the people. I hope this information will be of help to the
Committee and to the Commission.
In Alaska, the initiative petition is prepared by the lieutenant governor
through a ballot title and proposition which summarizes the proposed law
and he shall place this on the ballot for their first statewide election held
more than 120 days after adjournment of the legislative session following the
filing of the proposal. If before the election substantially the same measure
has been enacted, the petition is void.
In the State of Colorado, the original draft or text of the proposed initiated
constitutional amendments and initiated laws is submitted to the legislative
research and drafting offices of the general assembly for review and
comment. Not, later than two weeks after submission of the original draft
unless withdrawn by the proponents, the legislative research and drafting
offices of the general assembly shall render their comments to the
proponents of the proposed measure at a meeting open to the public, which
shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public.
Madam President, a book entitled: The American Federal Governments
Suffrage, Nominations and Elections has this paragraph on initiative and on
the matter of drafting a proposal:
The initiative is an electoral device through which an individual or a group
may propose statutory legislation or constitutional amendments by securing
the signatures of the requisite number of voters and may place the measure
before the electorate for adoption or rejection. The drafting of such measures
normally is done by interested groups or their attorneys. The number or
proportion of signatures required is set by law or constitution.
I hope these points will be considered by the Committee on Amendments
and Transitory Provisions.
Two more points, Madam President. Regarding the percentage of registered
voters that will propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative, I
think I agree with the first interpellator that this system of initiative should
be made more difficult.
In the State of Arizona, the number of electorate that can propose a
legislative measure is 10 percent, but it is higher for those who will propose
any amendment to the Constitution. Maybe, since the Constitution is a
FR. BERNAS: And when the word electorate was used here, would the
sponsor not contradict his previous statement?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President, because when we speak of electorate,
these are the voters who would participate either in a plebiscite or an
election.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Will the honorable sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Do I understand from the sponsor that the intention in the
proposal is to vest constituent power in the people to amend the
Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That is absolutely correct, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: I fully concur with the underlying precept of the proposal in
terms of institutionalizing popular participation in the drafting of the
Constitution or in the amendment thereof, but I would have a lot of
difficulties in terms of accepting the draft of Section 2, as written. would the
sponsor agree with me that in hierarchy of legal mandate, constituent power
has primacy over legal mandates?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is right, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: And would the sponsor agree with me that in the hierarchy of
legal values, the Constitution is source of all legal mandates and that
therefore we require a great deal of circumspection in the drafting and in the
amendments of the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That proposition is nondebatable.
MS. AQUINO: Such that in order to underscore the primacy of constituent
power we have a separate article in the constitution that would specifically
cover the process and the modes of amending the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Therefore, is the sponsor inclined, as the provisions are drafted
now, to again concede to the legislature the process or the requirement of
determining the mechanics of amending the Constitution by peoples
initiative?
MR. SUAREZ; The matter of implementing this could very well be placed in
the hands of the National Assembly, not unless we can incorporate into this
provision the mechanics that would adequately cover all the conceivable
situations.
MS. AQUINO: In other words, the sponsor would be amenable at the proper
time to accommodate amendments that would define or modify or amplify
these provisions in Section 2 of this Article?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President. The Committee would be delighted to
accept reasonable propositions at the appropriate time.
MS. AQUINO: On another point, do I understand it correctly that the
provisions in Section 2 are not self-executing in the sense that it would
further require the procedure enunciated in Section 4; that is,
notwithstanding the source of the proposed amendment, it would have to be
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: We understood that.
MR. SUAREZ: Section 2 must be interpreted together with the provisions of
Section 4, except that in Section 4, as it is presently drafted, there is no takeoff date for the 60-day and 90-day periods.
MS. AQUINO: Yes. In other words, Section 2 is another alternative mode of
proposing amendments to the Constitution which would further require the
process of submitting it in a plebiscite, in which case it is not self-executing.
MR. SUAREZ: No, not unless we settle and determine the take-off period.
MS. AQUINO: But as stated now, it is the process.
MR. SUAREZ: It is.
MS. AQUINO: In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this process
of initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. Would the
sponsor file amenable to accepting an amendment in terms of realigning
Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of setting it up as
another separate section as if it were a self-executing provision?
MR. SUAREZ: I am not aware of any such situation in the past, Madam
President, What I was only aware of is the fact that time and again there
were plebiscites called and the people were screaming that they had not
been given the full opportunity to thoroughly discuss, analyze and review the
proposals submitted.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about the previous Con-Con? Was there any problem
about enabling legislation?
MR. SUAREZ: No, we did not have any problem.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I see. In Section 2, there is a phrase which reads: after five
years from the date of the last plebiscite held. Is this designed to prevent
frequent amendments to the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President. It is a measure to prevent too
frequent amendments to the Constitution which might result in the
impoverishment of the government.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But Section 2 refers to a mode of amendment by initiative
only. Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But suppose we apply this to all modes of amendments so
that we prevent frequent amendments to the Constitution that the powersthat-be would like to undertake. What we have witnessed is that the
frequency of amendments to the Constitution is becoming a national sport.
MR. SUAREZ: Is the Gentleman suggesting that the five-year limitation period
be applied equally to sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 1 ?
MR. NATIVIDAD: It should apply to all modes and ways of amending the
Constitution. Suppose we limit it to, say, once in every six years in order to
prevent the frequent amendments to the Constitution to suit the powersthat-be.
MR. SUAREZ: That proposal or suggestion could be taken up at the
appropriate time during the period of amendments.
MR. NATIVIDAD: This is just to preserve the Constitution because I think we
are beginning to develop a reputation of changing the Constitution too often.
How about Section 3? Where is this amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: It is in Section 2.
MR. MAAMBONG: First of all, I would like to thank the sponsor for clarifying
his answer to my query last night. As it stands now, it is very clear to our
mind that the matter of calling a constitutional convention can now be done
not only by election but also by a plebiscite. This was also ,clarified in a
clarificatory question of Commissioner Bernas. I would also like to indicate
that it is now very clear in the Constitution that we have such words as
revision or amendment, which were not found in the 1935 Constitution.
Previously, if I recall correctly, in the case of Occena vs. COMELEC (G.R.
56350, April 12, 1981), the Supreme Court interpreted the word
amendment to cover a thorough revision of the Constitution, but that was
also clarified by Commissioner Padilla.
As premise to my question, I would like to associate myself with the concern
of Commissioner Rodrigo about the process we are now talking about
because, as one authority puts it, the amending process of the Constitution
could actually avert a revolution by providing a safety valve in bringing about
changes in the Constitution through pacific means. This, in effect,
operationalizes what political law authors call the prescription of
sovereignty. There is one point which is nagging my mind and, with the
sponsors indulgence, I would like to have this clarified. This is the term
constitutional convention. I understand that this was interpreted in the
framing of the 1935 Constitution as it was also interpreted in the framing of
the 1973 Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention. But I am afraid
that all these interpretations may not be acceptable in the present exercise
that we are doing. So my first question is: When the decision to call a
constitutional convention has been resolved by the people or the National
Assembly, is it not a fact that there should be an election of delegates to the
constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: That is what is envisioned under this constitutional provision,
Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: And when we say, there should be an election of delegates
to the constitutional convention, there should also be an enabling law not
only for that purpose but also for the purpose of providing funds therefor.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right, although not only in connection with
the budgetary situation but also in the number of the delegates to the
constitutional convention.
MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you, Madam President.
With that reply, the next question would be: Instead of causing the election
of delegates, has the legislature the power to just name the delegates to the
constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Under what provision would the Gentleman relate that?
MR. MAAMBONG: I am following up the sponsors answer that when we talk
of constitutional convention, we are talking of elective delegates to the
constitutional convention. In other words, it negates the authority of the
legislature to just name delegates to the constitutional convention without
calling an election.
MR. SUAREZ: That is very obvious, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
Since the legislature could not name delegates without calling an election, it
also goes without saying that the legislature cannot delegate the power to
somebody for that authority to name delegates to the constitutional
convention?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the sponsor.
Can the legislature determine the number of delegates to be elected to the
constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, as they did in 1971. In the 1970 enabling law, they
specifically stated the number to be 320 delegates from all over the country.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. And no other body can determine
the number of elective delegates to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: This will be my last question. Regarding the process of
election of delegates, does the sponsor agree with the opinion of the
Supreme Court and I am actually quoting this opinion of the Supreme Court
of Maine, U.S.A., in the opinion of Justices 167 APL. 176 that it is not valid
to elect delegates to the constitutional convention at large? And the
Supreme Court said and I quote:
Although a convention is summoned by the legislature, it derives its power
from the sovereign people. It has accordingly been the practice to have as
delegates those fairly representing the political subdivisions of the State. It is
evident therefore that in every constitutional convention of which we have
knowledge, delegates have been chosen not at large but from various
localities within the State.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, since there are no more interpellators and
there are no registered speakers pro or en contra, I move that we close the
period of sponsorship and debate.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the period of
amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The floor is open for amendments.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I propose the following amendment: delete the whole Section
2.
Madam President, this new provision is not necessary. There is no need for it.
The present provisions of the Constitution on the proposal for amendments
to the Constitution are most satisfactory, very democratic. This is done by
either the National Assembly composed of representatives elected by the
people all over the Philippines by a vote of three-fourths or by a
constitutional convention, again, composed of delegates elected by all from
all parts of the Philippines. And, usually, these delegates are elected on the
basis of their stand on certain constitutional issues.
Madam President, ours is a republican government which means a
representative government. This satisfies the essence of democracy. I do not
know why all of a sudden we now insist on this reserved people power. If
we base it on the EDSA peaceful revolution that is called people power,
that is one event in our history which, I think, can hardly be repeated
bloodless revolution that toppled the dictator. Now, we want to use people
power even in enacting laws and in proposing amendments to the
Constitution. Non sequitur, Madam President. It does not follow. There is no
popular clamor for this. I do not know that our people, because of the EDSA
peaceful revolution, are now clamoring to initiate constitutional amendments
directly. There is no such clamor from the people. And so, why clutter our
Constitution with a provision that is untried and impractical?
We are told that there are some states in the United States that follow this.
But those are states in the United States with less population than the
Philippines. And remember that the Philippines is an archipelago. It is so
difficult to go around and obtain 2,700,000 signatures based on the 10percent requirement; so, at 15 percent, more than 4,000,000 signatures.
After all, these 4,000,000 people who will sign that, if one can get them, are
not the ones who prepared the proposed amendment. They do not even
participate in the drafting of the proposed amendment. Maybe, only one
man, as the sponsor said, or a group of men would prepare this. And this
would go around for signatures, and those whose signatures are affixed
cannot even modify or amend the proposed amendment.
It is so impractical, Madam President, to have this go around the 7,000
islands in the country with so many different dialects. Maybe, this proposed
amendment has to be translated in all the dialects. It is impractical. I think it
is an exercise in futility. We will just clutter up our Constitution with a
provision that will not, in any way, be used.
Madam President. we are here as a Constitutional Commission. We have a
time constraint. Our aim is to go back to normal constitutional democracy as
soon as possible. Let us not go into controversial matters like this which can
hardly be understood by our people who, after all, are the ones who are
going to either ratify or reject this Constitution. Let us go to the basics. Let us
not depart radically from what we have found to be satisfactory in our
country for the last half-century or more than half-century, and that is the
republican form of government a government run by duly-elected
representatives of the people. This is practical. It is not perfect, but it is the
best kind of government that we know.
Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA.: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted by the sponsor?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment
by deletion submitted by the Honorable Rodrigo. First, we want to provide a
mechanism that is very responsive to the sentiments of the people. Second,
the fact that it is supposed to be impractical is fallacious in the sense that, if
a situation develops where the mechanisms provided under Section 1 (a) and
(b) could not be fully implemented in this wise, a time may come when in
spite of the clamor of the people for proposing amendments to the
Constitution, the National Assembly may not be able to muster enough votes
in order to constitute itself as a constituent assembly or to call a
constitutional convention. So, in that sense, it is a very practical avenue or
safety valve which is available to the people. And with respect to the third
ground we should go back to the basics of the Constitution. This is basic; this
is fundamental because it emanates from the people. It is a direct
representation made in behalf of the people. And so, it is a fundamental right
that finds expression in this system of initiative. So, we regret that we cannot
accept the proposed amendment. We would rather that this be submitted to
the floor for consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other speaker for the amendment?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are two speakers en contra.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it on the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President, on the amendment of Commissioner
Rodrigo, two members have registered to speak against and I have
requested that we divide the five-minute limit between the two of them. So, I
ask that Commissioner Tadeo be recognized for two minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, alam naman natin na ang nagsampa sa Cory
government ay ang people power. At kaya naririto ngayon ang Con-Com ay
dahil sa people power. Noong pumunta tayo rito, punung-puno ang ating
damdamin kung paano natin i-institutionalize ang people power. Paano natin
ito ilalagay sa Saligang Batas? Dalawa ang kinakailangang magawa natin
para magkaroon ng laman at dugo ang people power, para ito ay hindi papel
lamang. Sa paanong paraan? Kinakailangang bigyan natin ang mamamayan
ng political power; kinakailangang bigyan natin ang people power ng
economic power. Ano ang isang nakita natin para magkaroon siya ng political
power? Sa pamamagitan ng multi-party system na pinirmahan noong 17,
kung saan sinasabi natin, yung 250, ang limampu ay para doon sa
multisectoral. Alam natin na maliit pa iyan; 20 percent lang iyan. Maaaring
maging isang dekorasyon iyan. Ano pa ang nakikita natin na pwedeng
magbigay sa mga tao ng political power? Ang sabi natin, ang isang
magandang nakita namin sa UP draft ay ang system of recall and system of
initiative. Ngayon, anong ibig sabihin na ito ay impractical ayon sa sinabi ng
aking kababayan na si Commissioner Rodrigo?
Kamukha ng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), kami ay isang
pambansang organization. Ang system of initiative ay lalong iiral sa
magsasaka at manggagawa na siyang pinakamalaking sector para
magkaroon siya ng tinatawag na political power. Sapagkat kami ay
pambansa, mayroon kaming tinatawag na makinarya. Hindi po yung sinasabi
niyang individual o ilang grupo lang ng tao, kundi ang tinatawag na tunay na
militanteng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas. Mayroon kaming pang-regional
na organization; mayroon kami sa Central Luzon, Northeastern Luzon, Bicol,
THE PRESIDENT: The sponsor will please furnish a copy to the Secretariat. In
the meantime, can we proceed with other amendments, if there are any?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Will Commissioner Davide yield to a few questions regarding
his amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Under Commissioner Davides amendment, is it possible for
the legislature to set forth certain procedures to carry out the initiative, as in
some American states where the proposition is normally submitted to the
state attorney-general who puts it in proper form before it is submitted to the
people for voting? Under the Commissioners amendment, would the
legislature be allowed to set forth such a procedure?
MR. DAVIDE: It can.
MR. ROMULO: Under those systems, if the proposition as stated by the
attorney-general is not accepted by the proponents, they are allowed to go
to court to challenge his submission of their proposition.
MR. DAVIDE: The proponents can, if the legislative body will really leave that
particular matter to another body.
MR. ROMULO: In this case it is the COMELEC who will put it in proper form.
MR. DAVIDE: No, it is already silent.
MR. ROMULO: No, but it says shall be submitted to the COMELEC.
MR. DAVIDE: That was the original proposal; it was already deleted.
MR. ROMULO: But the Commissioners amendment does not prevent the
legislature from asking another body to set the proposition in proper form.
MR. DAVIDE: The Commissioner is correct. In other words, the
implementation of this particular right would be subject to legislation,
provided the legislature cannot determine anymore the percentage of the
requirement.
MR. ROMULO: But the procedures, including the determination of the proper
form for submission to the people, may be subject to legislation.
MR. DAVIDE: As long as it will not destroy the substantive right to initiate. In
other words, none of the procedures to be proposed by the legislative body
must diminish or impair the right conceded here.
MR. ROMULO: In that provision of the Constitution can the procedures which I
have discussed be legislated?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Natividad be given the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, will Commissioner Davide yield?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is Commissioner Davide willing to consider a possible
amendment to his amendment? This amendment is brought about by
comments I read from a book from PHILCONSA on constitutional and policy
issues and it is based on the comments of a certain Fortunato de Leon who
recommends that the Constitution, in order that it will not fall into the hands
of the powers that be, should only be amended no oftener than once in six
years.
I would also premise my question by reading the comments of our own
colleague here, Chief Justice Concepcion. His article entitled, The
Constitution and The Proposed Amendments Thereto states and I quote:
A Constitution is not only a legal document, not merely a covenant between
the people of a democratic society like ours. It is a symbol of the unity of the
people; it is a rallying point for them as a nation. If the Constitution is to
retain this role as the rallying point for the people, it should not be touched
except when absolutely necessary or when there is no other possible choice.
A Constitution that does not suffer many changes accumulated in the course
of time, a mass of customs, traditions and practices tending to impart to the
people the feeling that their nation has a solid foundation; that it is strong
enough to withstand the buffetings of the ages. A Constitution should not be
amended, unless the people feel that their welfare would otherwise be in
imminent danger of serious impairment.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I would like to file a motion to amend the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide: namely, that we eliminate or
delete the last sentence of the first paragraph which reads: NO
AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE
YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER
THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER. If we are not willing to limit
the National Assembly in making the necessary amendments, the more
reason we should not limit the people in making the necessary amendments
any time they think amendments are needed.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the only amendment of this Member on this
matter is the initiative calling for amendment after the first five years.
Insofar as the first five years is concerned, that was an original proposal of
the Committee. Insofar as that portion of the proposal covered by my original
amendment is concerned, it is with deep regret that I cannot accept the
proposal. That might even be divisive because every year people might be
campaigning for a proposed amendment. It will really destroy the sense of
stability of a constitution. It is enough that we recognize that right to be
exercised by them at least once every five years.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I do not see the logic in giving full freedom to
the National Assembly in making the necessary amendments, and yet
limiting the people to every five years. It seems to me that I will ask the
House to vote on this proposal.
MR. SUAREZ: Since the amendment to the amendment has not been
accepted by the proponent, may we request a vote on the matter, Madam
President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: For clarification, the amendment of Commissioner Rigos is
to delete the second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos,
please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 13 votes in favor of the amendment and 18 against; the
amendment to the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized for one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I move to delete the portion limiting my question to one.
Will the Gentleman yield?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may yield, if he so desires.
MR. RODRIGO: The proposed amendment says that a petition of at least 12
percent of the total number of registered voters is required. Is it possible that
two national groups, let us say, two national political groups or two
nationwide labor organizations, campaign for two inconsistent amendments
and both of them get more than 12 percent and both amendments also get
at least 3 percent in every legislative district.
MR. DAVIDE: It should be done simultaneously because if it would be one
after the other within a period of five years following the first five years after
the ratification, then it cannot be done.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, simultaneously, one organization senses or knows.
MR. DAVIDE: Two or three or four amendments can be proposed
simultaneously but it can only be submitted to a plebiscite once every five
years.
MR. RODRIGO: What happens if four inconsistent amendments get more than
12 percent?
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, both amendments qualify with the requirements
and numbers.
MR. RODRIGO: I was starting with only two amendments but the Gentleman
said it is even possible to have four. What will be done with those four
amendments, all of which qualify under this section?
MR. DAVIDE: Even if these amendments are inconsistent with one another,
the people will have the final say in the plebiscite.
MR. RODRIGO: How will they be presented to the people in a plebiscite?
MR. DAVIDE: The National Assembly shall, by law, provide for the
implementation of the exercise of this right. So, the law may provide that in
such instances where there are separate and inconsistent proposals for
amendments, then whichever of the amendments may be approved by a
MR. RODRIGO: But who will decide that? I did not know that. I always thought
of San Juan and Mandaluyong as part of Metro Manila. This is a very
important provision; we must specify; we must make it clear.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, this matter may be reviewed later depending
on what is the report of the Committee on Local Governments. The
municipalities in the metropolitan area will be returned to each respective
province. So, now in computing the percentage for purposes of initiative, the
vote in that particular municipality must be taken into account with the votes
of the rest of the province to where that municipality actually belongs.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
MR. DAVIDE: May I answer that, Madam President?
MS. AQUINO: I may be out of order but I would seek the kind indulgence and
liberality of the Chair to allow me to seek reconsideration of the voting that
amended the last sentence of Section 2 by changing the word Right to
POWER.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: This is significant for me because POWER represents a concept;
it is not just a matter of words or lexicon. I believe that the word right is
even more potent and even more determinative as against POWER. Power, in
the nature of its connotation, is a political concept which requires as a
condition the presence of strength before one could even invoke it; while
right, when enshrined in a law, is a right, regardless of whether one has the
strength or the power to assert it. Thus, I believe the word right is even
more potent than the word POWER.
It was because the Chair immediately called for a division of the House that I
was not able to timely interpose my objection to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion for reconsideration of
the amendment to change the word Right to POWER?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I object to the motion for reconsideration.
Firstly, the proposition or the motion is out of order. Secondly, I believe that
POWER is stronger than the word right. It is peoples power. All along we
have been speaking of peoples power-participatory democracy, blessings of
peoples power. I have already mentioned the reasons why POWER is more
appropriate than right. I respectfully submit, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I reiterate my motion that we take a vote on the whole Section 2.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I submit to the ruling of the Chair on my
motion for reconsideration.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Chair will first make its ruling.
Commissioner Aquino has appealed to the liberality of the Chair, and I
believe I choose to be liberal this afternoon. Therefore, I will just submit the
motion to the body for reconsideration.
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor and 3 against: Section 2, as amended, is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized to present the last
amendment to the last section.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I would like to propose an amendment to Section 4 in order to
reflect the necessity of a plebiscite in the exercise of the right under Section
2. As it reads now, the phrase after the approval of such amendment or
revision refers only to amendments under Section 1.
So, I would like to propose the addition of the following lines after the phrase
approval of such amendment or revision: UNDER SECTION 1 OR THE
DECLARATION BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OF THE COMPLETION OF
THE PETITION FOR AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 2 OF THIS ARTICLE.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, will the proponent of the amendment
accept an amendment to the amendment.
MR. MONSOD: The Gentleman will please state his amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I propose that on line 20, between the words
Constitution and shall, we insert the phrase UNDER SECTION 1,
SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B). Is that all right?
MR. MONSOD: That is all right, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What line, please?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Line 20, Madam President. Between the words
Constitution and shall, insert the phrase UNDER SECTION 1,
SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) to indicate the fact that Section 4 refers to the
amendment under Section 1 (a) and (b) by the National Assembly or by
the constitutional convention.
MR. MONSOD: I accept the amendment to the amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Then, I propose to include another paragraph after line
23, which will read: AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 2 SHALL BE VALID WHEN
RATIFIED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN A PLEBISCITE WHICH SHALL
BE HELD . . . The continuation will be the Gentlemans amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. It reads: NOT EARLIER THAN SIXTY DAYS AND NOT LATER
THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE DECLARATION BY THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS OF THE COMPLETION OF THE PETITION.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is my amendment.
MR. MONSOD: I accept the amendment to the amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: What is the complete wording, Madam President?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. DE LOS REYES: I move for a suspension of the session so that we can
consolidate our amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
MR. DAVIDE: In the original provision of both the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions, the submission to the electorate of the question calling such a
convention is in an election. That was eliminated by the proposal, the idea
being probably, that since it would be tied up with an election, the issue on
the call may not be meritoriously considered by the people. So it is
necessary that we should put here that the submission must be in a
referendum which can never be simultaneous with an election.
Secondly, if we do not add the new sentence; IF THE QUESTION IS
AFFIRMATIVELY VOTED UPON, THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL, WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DAY OF THE REFERENDUM, ENACT THE LAW
CALLING THE CONVENTION, the will of the people in approving the matter of
submitting the revision or amendment to a constitutional convention might
easily be frustrated by Congress by not acting at all after the question has
been submitted and affirmatively voted upon by the people. So I submit that
the proposed amendment is necessary to give teeth to Section 3.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. MAAMBONG: I thought that this matter on Section 3 has already been
properly explained by the sponsor to the extent that this could actually be
done either in an election or a plebiscite. At any rate, the proposed
amendment is too involved.
May I ask for a suspension of the session, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
Azcuna
Bacani
Bernas
all other territories territories outside the Archipelago over which the
government exercises jurisdiction. Third, I also vote yes because the Article
does not make any uncertain claim of any territory, and, therefore, avoids
creating useless or even harmful friction. At the same time, however, under
the generally accepted principles of international law which we adopt, it does
not prevent us from making use of any accepted modes of establishing a
claim to a territory. For these reasons, I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
RosarioBraid
Brocka
Calderon
Castrode
Colayco
Concepcion
claim over Sabah; and, finally, Madam President, a vote of yes on the
proposal would be an act of liberality on our part to accommodate not the
Filipinos but some other people.
So, I vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Second, we are presuming that our officials would be making, on our behalf,
irresponsible and illegal claims which, I think, would contradict the statement
made by the honorable proponent of the amendment that we should
presume that our officials would perform their functions properly.
Third, because even the Malaysians themselves in the Manila Accord that I
had the privilege to read in this hall accept our right to pursue our claim to
Sabah.
Finally, may I invite attention to the fact that quite a number of those who
voted in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Bernas, in effect, voted
conditionally because they were relying on assurance which, in my opinion,
would have no binding effect.
My vote is no.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Nieva
Nolledo
support and I did support the Bernas amendment the second amendment
which, in my opinion, improved upon the original formulation. It did not
waive any just claim of the Philippines. It could have removed certain
mirages and preconceptions, which I considered germs of potential conflict.
We are trying to write a Constitution of peace; a reconciliation with our
brothers in Mindanao is, right now, almost on the top of our national agenda.
I put a lot of weight on the opinions expressed by our three brother Muslims
from Mindanao Ambassador Abubakar, Commissioners Domocao Alonto
and Lugum Uka all of whom thought that this reformulation by the Bernas
amendment of the National Territory would help accelerate the return of
peace and enduring unity between Muslims and Filipinos in Mindanao. I
regret some of the unkind tendencies of earlier remarks that attributed
motives other than or less patriotic to those who voted for the Bernas
amendment I think that is foul. I think we are not accommodating any
other nation. I think that the interest of Malaysia does not appeal to anyone
here and to insinuate that this could have affected some of the thinking of
those who voted is certainly unkind and unparliamentary. I think that, as it
stands, this is a good definition of our national territory. It responds to our
best conceptions of the territory which is indulged with sanctity for every
Filipino that territory is certainly under our sovereign jurisdiction. We may
have claims to other parts of the world but these are in the nature of claims
which are not foreclosed under international law and which cannot partake of
the same sanctity for us Filipinos of that territory over which the Republic of
the Philippines now exercises sovereign jurisdiction and which can claim from
everyone of us a supreme sacrifice in the future.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Padilla
MR. PADILLA: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER PADILLA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. PADILLA: I voted against the deletion of the Article on National Territory
because I believe that the Constitution should have a provision on National
Territory.
Madam President, the Article on National Territory in the 1973 Constitution
included the phrase historic right or legal title. This was changed to the
phrase over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction. As a
Rama
which has just emerged from the rubble of a war. Therefore, former
Governor-General Harrison urged the Philippine government to present to the
United Nations a claim on Sabah because he repudiated and was scandalized
by the acts of the British. But there is no perfect crime because when one
examines the annexation order whereby the British government claimed
sovereignty over Sabah, it was full of defects and the major defect was this:
According to that annexation order, the British government claimed
sovereignty over Sabah by virtue of the fact that it has assumed the rights of
the British North Borneo Company. Our records will show that the British
North Borneo Company never exercised public power nor sovereign rights
since it was a private corporation. In other words, it could not have given to
the British government what it did not have Nemo dat quod non habet.
As to the argument that this may give rise to violence, I would also advert to
the body the fact that the Philippine government insisted on a peaceful
settlement and even invited Malaysia to take this question to the
International Court of Justice. Precisely, we wanted a peaceful settlement, a
civilized settlement among nations, but it was Malaysia who refused to go to
that peaceful settlement and, therefore, courted trouble.
Therefore, Madam President, I am more concerned about the rights of the
Filipinos than the rights of Malaysians.
I vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Regalado
Reyesdelos
Rigos
Sarmiento
Tadeo
Treas
Uka
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Brocka
Calderon
Colayco
Foz
Garcia
Jamir
Laurel
Romulo
Rosales
Sumulong
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Yes
Yes
Yes
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I object to the motion because that would be
against the Rules.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is out of order. We already had a voting;
therefore, the only remedy open would be for a motion for reconsideration
which we could consider at some future time.
MR. BENGZON: May I beg your pardon, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: I said we already had a voting on the resolution. The
resolution was lost and so, the only remedy open is for a motion for
reconsideration which we can consider tomorrow.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I say something.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. BENGZON: Under the circumstances, I would like to move for the
suspension of the Rules in order to obviate the filing of a motion for
reconsideration tomorrow. So, may I move for a suspension of the Rules
today, so that we could continue with the nominal voting tomorrow.
MR. GUINGONA: I object, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I object because I am afraid this will
create a bad precedent that everytime a vote is taken and it is lost, we will
ask for a suspension of the Rules.
MR. BENGZON: In that case, as suggested by the Chair, the motion for
reconsideration will be presented tomorrow.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Before any motion for reconsideration is presented at the
appropriate time, would the results of the voting today mean that the new
Constitution will be without an Article on National Territory, unless the
Committee will propose another?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, as it is now, there is no provision for the National
Territory in the Constitution.
R.C.C. NO. 27
Thursday, July 10, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 3:10 p.m. the President the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present*
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Present
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Maambong
Monsod
Natividad
Nieva
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Colayco
Concepcion
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyesdelos
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Nolledo
Ople
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present
Present*
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
FR. BERNAS: If I will be allowed to repeat what we have repeated over and
over again in this session hall, I will repeat the reasons.
MR. DE CASTRO: I ask this because before this amendment, when the phrase
was still government exercises sovereign jurisdiction, the sponsor insisted
that we are not dropping our claim over Sabah with that phrase. That is why I
am now asking why we are dropping our claim per the sponsors explanation.
FR. BERNAS: I already said we are not dropping any claim.
MR. DE CASTRO: The sponsor is not dropping any claim but he leaves this
claim to be settled under international law and not state it on the provision
on National Territory, am I correct?
FR. BERNAS: I said I am prescinding from any claim which may have been
made by the government of the Philippines. It is not a question of dropping
or continuing; it is a question of prescinding P-R-E-S-C-I-N-D-I-N-G.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, we are playing with words here. Frankly
and forthrightly, why do we not state that we are claiming or we are
abandoning our claim? Why play with words?
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: I just want to ask one simple question that requires a simple
answer. Has the Philippines ever acquired jurisdiction over Sabah? I mean,
within the context of the term jurisdiction.
FR. BERNAS: We are not answering that question here; we are prescinding
from that question here.
MR. ABUBAKAR: But we spoke of jurisdiction. Why are we afraid to face the
issue and not answer the question if ever we have acquired jurisdiction over
Sabah?
FR. BERNAS: Because I am. not in a position to answer the factual issues of
the case. The complicated issues of the case are factual. We have not been
given the documents for us to examine. How can we make a judgment over
that?
We believe that if we have to make a judgment, it must be a judgment with
due process. And due process is a process which decides only after hearing.
We have not heard; we have not seen the evidence.
MR. ABUBAKAR: In other words, from the sponsors reply and from his
knowledge and whatever evidence we heard, he does not put in the Record
that the Philippines has acquired jurisdiction over Sabah?
FR. BERNAS: We are not.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Thank you.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: The honorable Members of this Commission will perhaps
recall that last night, I objected to the motion for reconsideration and made a
manifestation that today I would make a motion to recommit the Article on
National Territory to the committee concerned But this morning, after
consultation, I agreed not to object and not to present any motion. However,
may I say that I find it unfortunate that the question regarding sovereignty
has to be raised. I had the occasion to read the statement of Messrs. Kaplan
and Katzenbach wherein, speaking of sovereignty, they said:
There is no more confusing concept in international law than sovereignty. It
has been viewed indiscriminately in a number of different meanings by
decision-makers and scholars alike.
I regret that we have to distinguish sovereignty, whether it is past, present or
future, because 200 years from now, if the Philippines were to acquire a
territory and if we follow the interpretation given here that sovereignty refers
to present sovereignty, then it would appear we cannot claim sovereignty
over the territory that we will acquire 200 years from now because the
wording here is HAS SOVEREIGNTY, and it only refers to the present; it is
used in the present tense.
So, I regret very much that this has to be opened. I had hoped that we would
let the word SOVEREIGNTY remain as it is without the necessity of further
interpretation or construction.
Thank you, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, just a word of reply, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bernas may do so.
FR. BERNAS: In my reply to the interpellation of Commissioner Davide, the
only thing I excluded was past sovereignty. I did not exclude whatever we
might have in the future; I did not exclude whatever we may have in the
future.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: The amendment has been sufficiently debated and none has
registered to further interpellate. So, I move that we take a vote on the
amendment of Commissioner Bernas.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
We will now proceed to take a vote on the amendment of Commissioner
Bernas.
FR. BERNAS: The phrase to be added in substitution will be: all the other
territories over which the PHILIPPINES HAS SOVEREIGNTY OR jurisdiction.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)
The results show 38 votes in favor of the amendment and 2 against; the
amendment is, therefore, approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we close the period of
amendments on the Article on National Territory.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the voting on Third
Reading on the Article on National Territory.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bennagen
Bernas
RosarioBraid
Brocka
Calderon
Castrode
Yes
Yes
Yes
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, I vote no, be- cause whatever play of
words we have in this Article on National Territory, our country would, in
effect, drop its claim to Sabah and to any territory it may want to claim in the
future, as stated by Commissioner Guingona. We should also have given the
Executive the opportunity to have a hand in so delicate and important an
issue like our claim to Sabah. My remarks last night stand.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Colayco
Concepcion
Yes
Yes
Davide
Yes
Yes
Gascon
Guingona
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rosales
Tingson
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Castrode
Colayco
Concepcion
Davide
Foz
Garcia
Gascon
Guingona
Jamir
Laurel
Lerum
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Ople
Padilla
MuozPalma
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyesdelos
Rigos
Yes
No
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
MuozPalma
Rosales
Tingson
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 4:02 p. m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:06 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Adolfo S. Azcuna,
presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The session is resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Consideration of Committee Report No. 18 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary- General will read only the title of the
committee report without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole text
thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Committee Report No. 18, entitled:
ARTICLE ON THE JUDICIARY.
(The following is the whole text of the draft Article on the Judiciary per C.R.
No. 18.)
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 18
The Committee on the Judiciary to which were referred the following
proposed resolutions:
Proposed Resolution No. 14, introduced by Hon. de los Reyes, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO RETAIN THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 11 (1) OF
THE 1973 CONSTITUTION AND TO MAKE THE SAME MANDATORY AND
APPLICABLE TO CASES PENDING BEFORE THE COURTS,
Proposed Resolution No. 18, introduced by Hon. Azcuna, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT OF AMPARO,
Proposed Resolution No. 52, introduced by Hon. Guingona, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION ARTICLES ON
THE JUDICIARY TO SAFEGUARD AND ENHANCE THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE
SUPREME COURT,
Proposed Resolution No. 75, introduced by Hon. Colayco, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION
PROHIBITING THE DESIGNATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
AND OF THE OTHER COURTS CREATED BY LAW TO PERFORM NON JUDICIAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES OR AGENCIES EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF
THE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
Proposed Resolution No. 78, introduced by Hon. Davide, entitled:
ProposedResolution
No.14(delosReyes)
No.18(Azcuna)
No.52(Guingona)
No.75(Colayco)
No.78(Davide)
No.112(delosReyes)
No.115(Davide)
No.140(Suarez)
No.143(Davide)
Nos146&147(Regalado)
No.153(Romulo)
No.204(Colayco)
No.236(Romulo)
No.259(Treas)
No.275(Treas)
No.292(Padilla)
No.313(Suarez)
SectionEmbodiedIn
Sec.14
Sec.7(5)
Sec.13&15
Sec.8
Sec.6
Sec.6
Sec.2,2ndPara.
Sec.2,2ndPara.
Sec.12,2ndPara.
Sec.3(2)
Sec.6
Sec.6
Sec.16
Sec.7(5)
Sec.14
Sec.12,3rdPara.
Sec.15
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.
SECTION 2. The National Assembly shall have the power to define, prescribe,
and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 7 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines
security of tenure.
SECTION 3. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and
ten Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in two divisions.
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, or law shall be heard and decided by the Supreme
Court en banc, and no treaty, international or executive agreement, or law
may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of a majority plus
one of the members who actually participated when the case was submitted
for decision. The same number of votes shall be required for the imposition
of the death penalty.
(3) All other cases including those involving the application or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and
other regulations which under the rules of court are required to be heard en
banc shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members
who actually participated when the case was submitted for decision.
(4) Cases heard by a division shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the members who actually participated when the case was
submitted for decision but if such required number is not obtained, the case
shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid
down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be
modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
SECTION 4. (1) No person shall be appointed member of the Supreme Court
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least forty years of
age, and has for fifteen years or more been a judge of a lower court or
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
Members who actually participated when the matter was submitted for
resolution.
SECTION 11. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to
it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before
the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the court. A
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a
copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties.
Any Member dissenting or abstaining from a decision shall state the reason
for his dissent or abstention. The same requirement shall be observed by all
lower collegiate courts.
SECTION 12. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court
shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
An appeal by the State and/or the offended party from a judgment of
acquittal may be allowed in the discretion of the Supreme Court by a petition
for review on certiorari on the ground that it is manifestly against the
evidence and with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
SECTION 13. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During
their continuance in office, their salary shall not be diminished nor subjected
to income tax. Until the National Assembly shall provide otherwise, the Chief
Justice shall receive an annual salary of ____________ and each Associate
Justice ______________ pesos.
SECTION 14. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from
date of submission for the Supreme Court, and unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three
months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
rules of court or by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this
effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be
issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and
served upon the parties.
SECTION 15. An amount equivalent to not less than two percent of the
national budget shall be automatically appropriated and regularly released
for the judiciary.
SECTION 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of
each regular session of the National Assembly, submit to the President and
the National Assembly an annual report on the operations and activities of
the judiciary. The Chief Justice shall address the National Assembly at the
opening of each regular session.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that the sponsor of the Article on the Judiciary,
Commissioner Concepcion, be recognized?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The session is suspended.
The first section starts with a sentence copied from former Constitutions. It
says:
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law.
I suppose nobody can question it.
The next provision is new in our constitutional law. I will read it first and
explain.
Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part or instrumentality of
the government.
Fellow Members of this Commission, this is actually a product of our
experience during martial law. As a matter of fact, it has some antecedents
in the past, but the role of the judiciary during the deposed regime was
marred considerably by the circumstance that in a number of cases against
the government, which then had no legal defense at all, the solicitor general
set up the defense of political questions and got away with it. As a
consequence, certain principles concerning particularly the writ of habeas
corpus, that is, the authority of courts to order the release of political
detainees, and other matters related to the operation and effect of martial
law failed because the government set up the defense of political question.
And the Supreme Court said: Well, since it is political, we have no authority
to pass upon it. The Committee on the Judiciary feels that this was not a
proper solution of the questions involved. It did not merely request an
encroachment upon the rights of the people, but it, in effect, encouraged
further violations thereof during the martial law regime. I am sure the
members of the Bar are familiar with this situation. But for the benefit of the
Members of the Commission who are not lawyers, allow me to explain. I will
start with a decision of the Supreme Court in 1973 on the case of Javellana
vs. the Secretary of Justice, if I am not mistaken. Martial law was announced
on September 22, although the proclamation was dated September 21. The
obvious reason for the delay in its publication was that the administration
had apprehended and detained prominent newsmen on September 21. So
that when martial law was announced on September 22, the media hardly
published anything about it. In fact, the media could not publish any story
not only because our main writers were already incarcerated, but also
because those who succeeded them in their jobs were under mortal threat of
being the object of wrath of the ruling party. The 1971 Constitutional
Convention had begun on June 1, 1971 and by September 21 or 22, had not
finished the Constitution; it had barely agreed on the fundamentals of the
Constitution. I forgot to say that upon the proclamation of martial law, some
delegates to that 1971 Constitutional Convention, dozens of them were
picked up. One of them was our very own colleague, Commissioner Calderon.
So, the unfinished draft of the Constitution was taken over by
representatives of Malacaang. In 17 days, they finished what the delegates
to the 1971 Constitutional Convention had been unable to accomplish for
about 14 months. The draft of the 1973 Constitution was presented to the
President around December 1, 1972, whereupon the President issued a
decree calling a plebiscite which suspended the operation of some provisions
in the martial law decree which prohibited discussions, much less public
discussions, of certain matters of public concern. The purpose was
presumably to allow a free discussion on the draft of the Constitution on
which a plebiscite was to be held sometime in January 1973. If I may use a
word made famous by our colleague, Commissioner Ople, during the
interregnum, however, the draft of the Constitution was analyzed and
criticized with such a telling effect that Malacaang felt the danger of its
disapproval. So, the President suspended indefinitely the holding of the
plebiscite and announced that he would consult the people in a referendum
to be held from January 10 to January 15. But the questions to be submitted
in the referendum were not announced until the eve of its scheduled
beginning, under the supposed supervisions not of the Commission on
Elections, but of what was then designated as citizens assemblies or
barangays. Thus the barangays came into existence. The questions to be
propounded were released with proposed answers thereto, suggesting that it
was unnecessary to hold a plebiscite because the answers given in the
referendum should be regarded as the votes cast in the plebiscite.
Thereupon, a motion was filed with the Supreme Court praying that the
holding of the referendum be suspended When the motion was being heard
before the Supreme Court, the Minister of Justice delivered to the Court a
proclamation of the President declaring that the new Constitution was
already in force because the overwhelming majority of the votes cast in the
referendum favored the Constitution. Immediately after the departure of the
Minister of Justice, I proceeded to the session room where the case was being
heard. I then informed the Court and the parties the presidential
proclamation declaring that the 1973 Constitution had been ratified by the
people and is now in force.
A number of other cases were filed to declare the presidential proclamation
null and void. The main defense put up by the government was that the
issue was a political question and that the court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the case.
Under the Constitution, the President may declare martial law in case of
invasion, insurrection or rebellion or imminent danger thereof. If public safety
or public interest requires it, he may suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
The second, third and fourth subsections or paragraphs of this section state,
and I quote:
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, or law shall be heard and decided by the Supreme
Court en banc, and no treaty, international or executive agreement, or law
may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of a majority plus
one of the members who actually participated when the case was submitted
for decision. The same number of votes shall be required for the imposition
of the death penalty.
The present Constitution requires 10 votes of the Supreme Court. Our draft
requires only a majority plus one:
(3) All other cases including those involving the application or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and
other regulations which under the rules of court are required to be heard en
banc shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members
who actually participated when the case was submitted for decision.
(4) Cases heard by a division shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the members who actually participated when the case was
submitted for decision but if such required number is not obtained, the case
shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid
down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be
modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
There are two important changes introduced by this section: the court may
sit in two divisions or en banc. As usual, a majority is necessary to have a
quorum. But to render a decision, only a majority plus one is necessary to
declare a law unconstitutional. Whereas under the present Constitution the
Supreme Court is composed of 15 members, the vote of 10 members is
required to declare a law unconstitutional. Often, however, the actual
membership of the court is limited to 12 or even 11. To require 10 votes for
the declaration of unconstitutionality, the votes of three or four members
would prevail over those of a clear majority of the Court members. This has
happened several times in the past. The two-thirds requirement, therefore,
strengthens the executive and weakens judicial power.
The first paragraph of Section 4 of the draft states:
(1) no person shall be appointed member of the Supreme Court unless he is
a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least forty years of age, and has
for fifteen years or more been a judge of a lower court or engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines.
Several important changes are thereby introduced. The present law requires
10 years as a judge of a court of record to be qualified for appointment to the
Supreme Court. Our draft provision increases the requirement to 15 years.
Besides, we have eliminated the words of record in the phrase court of
record because all lower courts are now courts of record.
Paragraph (2) of the draft Section 4 provides:
The National Assembly shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower
courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a naturalborn citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.
Section 5 reads:
The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be
appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by
a Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no
confirmation.
The choice of the President in filling vacancies in the judiciary is limited to a
list of nominees prepared or submitted by a Judicial and Bar Council of which
we will speak later more in detail.
Moreover, the appointments by the President need no confirmation by
another body.
This is a provision suggested by practicing lawyers upon the ground that in
the past judges had to kowtow to members of the legislative body to get an
appointment or at least to see the Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary in Congress and request his support to the confirmation of his
appointment. The idea is to forestall as much as possible the influence of
partisan politics.
Section 6 of the draft is to the effect that:
A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the
Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman, the
Minister of Justice and a representative of the National Assembly as ex-officio
members, a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, a
professor of law, a retired member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector.
The Committee sought to have in the Council a representation for the major
elements of the community.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the
Civil Service Law.
SECTION 8. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts
established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasijudicial and/or administrative functions.
SECTION 9. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all
courts and the personnel thereof.
SECTION 10. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts
shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy
years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The
Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by the vote of a majority plus one of the
Members who actually participated when the matter was submitted for
resolution.
SECTION 11. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to
it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before
the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the court. A
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a
copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties.
Any Member dissenting or abstaining from a decision shall state the reason
for his dissent or abstention. The same requirement shall be observed by all
lower collegiate courts.
SECTION 12. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court
shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
An appeal by the State and/or the offended party from a judgment of
acquittal may be allowed in the discretion of the Supreme Court by a petition
for review on certiorari on the ground that it is manifestly against the
evidence and with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
SECTION 13. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law.
During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be diminished nor
subjected to income tax. Until the National Assembly shall provide otherwise,
the Chief Justice shall receive an annual salary of _________ and each
Associate Justice __________ pesos.
SECTION 14. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from
date of submission for the Supreme Court, and unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three
months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
rules of court or by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, certification of this
effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be
issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and
served upon the parties.
SECTION 15. An amount equivalent to not less than two percent of the
national budget shall be automatically appropriated and regularly released
for the judiciary.
SECTION 16. The Supreme Court, shall, within thirty days from the opening of
each regular session of the National Assembly, submit to the President and
the National Assembly an annual report on the operations and activities of
the judiciary. The Chief Justice shall address the National Assembly at the
opening of each regular session.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The honorable Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Will Commissioner Concepcion please yield to interpellations?
MR. CONCEPCION: With pleasure.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
Before I ask my questions, I do not know if it is proper for me to state that
the 1973 Constitution was ratified by barangay assemblies as the Gentleman
stated. There were pictures produced by the previous administration showing
people raising their hands and Marcos claimed that they were voting for the
I would like to ask the second question with respect to the second paragraph
of Section 2, which reads: No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary
when it undermines security of tenure.
The Supreme Court ruled in some cases that there is no vested right to
public office and that if a public office is abolished, security of tenure is not
adversely affected.
Would the Gentleman say then that that doctrine is changed by this
proposed provision?
MR. CONCEPCION: Certainly. First, reorganization should not be resorted to
for the purpose of dismissing any judge.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
The third question . . .
MR. CONCEPCION: I think Commissioner Davide has filed a resolution on that
point and he can explain his thoughts on the matter.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
This particular proposal was based on a resolution filed by this representation
and amended basically by the amendment of Commissioner Padilla. We
realize, of course, that in 1980 for instance, under the guise of a judicial
reorganization, the so-called judicial reorganization was made. So, there was
a general revamp of the judiciary. Supposedly, the intention of the revamp
was to attain economy, but actually the main purpose of that general
revamp was to eliminate from the judiciary people whom the leadership at
the time believed to be not loyal to the administration and to replace them
with people who were loyal to the administration. Necessarily, the result was
massive expulsion or ouster of several people, especially of those who had
no padrinos, as well as the entry into the judiciary of people who had the
necessary connections with the politicians of the dispensation at the time.
I recall very well that despite the creation of the Integrity Council to effect
the revamp, the recommendations of the Integrity Council were disregarded.
I know personally of an assemblyman who recommended somebody whose
name was in the final list, but eventually another list was submitted to
Malacaang and what happened was that this gentleman, who was
recommended and who already gave a treat to the assemblyman, found
(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be
decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the date of submission
for the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and
three months for all other lower courts.
MR. CONCEPCION: It is mandatory, but we do not use the word mandatory;
instead we say must.
MR. NOLLEDO: How would the Commissioner interpret that? Is that directory
or mandatory?
MR. CONCEPCION: It is not directory; it is an order that is why we say must.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Supreme Court ruling says must or shall in view of
the clogging of cases which made it impossible for the Supreme Court to
decide the cases within the stated period.
MR. CONCEPCION: We have not only said it must do this but we also say
that the Supreme Court shall devise a plan to unclog the dockets of the
courts. Furthermore, the Gentleman will notice that there is an addition in
the draft which says: The Chief Justice shall appear before or address the
National Assembly at the opening of its regular session. The idea is to encourage him by giving him a better image, and at the same time allow him to
confront the representatives of the judiciary and convey their criticisms on
the operation of courts.
We did not want to put it in such a language as would debase the dignity of
the bench, but expressed our idea in a polite language.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The time of the Commissioner has
expired.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna) The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Padilla be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Commissioner Padilla is recognized
and is given 15 minutes.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer and Commissioner Davide, in response to
a question propounded by Commissioner Nolledo on the proposed provision
that reads: No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it
undermines security of tenure, may I be permitted to say that the Batasang
MR. CONCEPCION: We will require a majority plus one, of those Members who
actually participated in the deliberation.
FR. BERNAS: So it is the same as in the preceding paragraph.
MR. CONCEPCION: That is right.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you.
On page 5, line 5 says: when they reach the age of seventy years or
become incapacitated . . . Who will decide whether they have become
incapacitated?
MR. CONCEPCION: The Committee has not decided on that. But, presumably,
the Judicial and Bar Council would be consulted about it and, of course, the
Supreme Court.
FR. BERNAS: But if an actual case arises, and we notice that a particular
Justice of the Supreme Court seems to be incapacitated and his capacity is
challenged, who would decide on that?
MR. CONCEPCION: No. That is not settled by the draft proposal.
FR. BERNAS: Could that matter be settled by ordinary legislation?
MR. CONCEPCION: As to the procedure, I suppose so.
FR. BERNAS: It could be.
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: May I go back to page 4, Section 8 which says:
The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law
shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial and/or
administrative functions.
Is this also a prohibition against justices giving advisory opinions to the
President?
MR. CONCEPCION: No, not that.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
And while the President will still appoint the members of the judiciary, he will
be limited to the recommendees of this Council.
MR. CONCEPCION: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: And the Council will, whenever there is a vacancy,
recommend three.
MR. CONCEPCION: At least three for every vacancy.
MR. RODRIGO: And the President cannot appoint anybody outside of the
three recommendees.
MR. CONCEPCION: Nomination by the Council would be one of the
qualifications for appointment.
MR. RODRIGO: Suppose the President does not want to appoint any of the
three, will the Council be asked to submit another list?
MR. CONCEPCION: In other words, it is just the same as saying the President
is not willing to comply with the Constitution
MR. RODRIGO: No, he is willing to comply, but he does not want to appoint
any of the three.
MR. CONCEPCION: That is it. The Constitution requires that the nominee be
included in the list of the Council.
MR. RODRIGO: No. That is what I want to know. The Council submits three
nominees, but the President does not want to appoint any of them. Can he
ask the Council to submit another list of three nominees?
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes, definitely.
MR. RODRIGO: And if he does not want these three new nominees, the
Council could still submit another three?
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes. I understand that there is also a proposal requiring
the filling of vacancies within a specified period.
MR. RODRIGO: Of the seven members of the Judicial and Bar Council, the
President appoints four of them who are the regular members.
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes, that is right.
MR. RODRIGO: So, majority of the members of the Council are appointees of
the President.
MR. CONCEPCION: That is right.
MR. RODRIGO: Can the members of the Council be reappointed?
MR. CONCEPCION: They can be reappointed.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, they can be reappointed, because the tenure of office is
staggered one is appointed for four years, the others are for three years,
two and one.
MR. CONCEPCION: The only purpose of the Committee is to eliminate
partisan politics.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the member who is appointed for a one-year term can be
reappointed for a three- or four-year term. There is no limitation on
reappointment?
MR. CONCEPCION: That is right.
MR. RODRIGO: Another point. Under our present Constitution, the National
Assembly may enact rules of court, is that right? On page 4, the proviso on
lines 17 to 19 of the Article on the Judiciary provides:
The National Assembly may repeal, alter, or supplement the said rules with
the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court.
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: So, two things are required of the National Assembly before it
can repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, etc. it must have the advice
and concurrence of the Supreme Court.
MR. CONCEPCION: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: This renders the job of the Assembly inutile because it is
absolutely dependent on the Supreme Court. It cannot initiate anything; it
has to solicit first the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court.
MR. CONCEPCION: The President is not the Almighty God. He cannot know
better than the courts. The courts control internal operation. That is the
purpose.
MR. RODRIGO: Why not just remove this power, which is inutile, from the
National Assembly?
MR. CONCEPCION: That is the Commissions concern. If it wants to eliminate
it, we will not object to it.
MR. RODRIGO: Instead of giving it a power, which is no power at all, we
might as well eliminate this.
MR. CONCEPCION: The point is this. We feel that no President can know
better than the court what the demands of its internal operations are.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. I think I made myself clear on that point.
Another point, Mr. Presiding Officer, which we took up in the Committee on
the Legislative is that of giving the State or the offended party the power to
appeal from a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case. For the benefit of
those who are not lawyers in this body, there is the rule at present against
double jeopardy, which provides that if an accused is acquitted at any stage
of the judicial proceeding, he can no longer be tried. So, if an accused is
acquitted in the municipal court, the judgment of acquittal cannot be
appealed to the regional court or to the court of appeals.
Section 12, on page 5, states:
An appeal by the State and/or the offended party from a judgment of
acquittal may be allowed in the discretion of the Supreme Court by a petition
for review on certiorari on the ground that it is manifestly against the
evidence and with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
MR. CONCEPCION: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: Even if it is not a mere question of law but of appreciation of
facts or evidence?
MR. CONCEPCION: If there has been an abuse of discretion, the court has no
jurisdiction and, of course, if the court has no jurisdiction, there could be no
valid decision. That is it.
MR. RODRIGO: But lack of jurisdiction can be based on a mistake of the
appreciation of facts because it says: review on certiorari on the ground that
it is manifestly against the evidence.
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes, it is manifestly against the evidence on record.
MR. RODRIGO: But it says here: in the discretion of the Supreme Court. I
would like to clarify this. Is it only the Supreme Court to which a judgment of
acquittal can be appealed? Can a judgment of acquittal of a municipal court
be appealed to a regional trial court?
MR. CONCEPCION: When it affects jurisdiction, it goes to the Supreme Court.
The power to review cases involving jurisdiction is stated in the Constitution.
That is simple if there is no jurisdiction, there is no authority, and if there
is no authority, the decision rendered is null and void.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the offended party may appeal to the Supreme Court.
Suppose somebody is acquitted in the municipal court, can the offended
party appeal to the regional trial court?
MR. CONCEPCION: I suppose he could not but if he wants to question the
jurisdiction, that is another thing. It is not an appeal. I think Commissioner
Rodrigo is not speaking of appeal in general.
MR. RODRIGO: By a petition for review on certiorari.
MR. CONCEPCION: It is an appeal based on the allegation that there has been
such abuse of discretion that the court which rendered the judgment acted
without jurisdiction.
MR. RODRIGO: I go back to my question. Suppose the accused is acquitted in
the municipal court and the offended party wants a petition for review on
certiorari, can he petition the regional trial court for it or does he have to go
to the Supreme Court?
MR. CONCEPCION: I ask Commissioner Padilla, the author of the provision, to
answer the Commissioners question because I do not want to preempt him.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, the provision, as it appears in the
committee report, is limited to a petition for review on certiorari to the
Supreme Court, subject to the discretion of the Supreme Court. My original
proposal referred to the discretion of the appellate court, but the Committee
felt that, when the question involves lack or excess of jurisdiction, the
petition should be directed or confined to the Supreme Court. I would like to
add that the ground is specific and restricted. Besides being discretionary on
the part of the Supreme Court, it may dismiss a petition for review on
certiorari outright if it has no merits.
In addition, the ground for a petition for review on certiorari is not only if the
judgment is manifestly against the evidence but also if it is rendered with
(.) after the word Constitution and to delete nor oftener than once every
five years thereafter.
I feel it is awkward to give freedom to the National Assembly as far as
proposing amendments to the Constitution is concerned since we do not give
the same freedom to the people. So, I would like to file this motion for
reconsideration.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we defer consideration of the motion for
reconsideration for tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we adjourn until tomorrow at
nine oclock in the morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Azcuna): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine oclock in
the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Blas F. Ople.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. OPLE: Lord, You were the Original Taskmaster. In the Old Testament, You
gave a covenant to Your people. It was a good CBA or Collective Bargaining
Agreement, as we would call it now, but the enjoyment of its benefits
required reciprocal performance and sacrifice.
You promised them deliverance from oppression and the ultimate refuge of a
land of justice flowing with milk and honey. But this was not going to be a
simple gift of Your bounty. You did not promise a free lunch.
It was going to be a test of faith on a long journey beset by all kinds of
dangers, hunger, discord and mutinies, the sword of unforeseen enemies,
and the ultimate risk, the loss of moral endurance and of the will to struggle,
the peoples capitulation not to external enemies but to their own internal
weakness.
Lord, in this Constitutional Commission, we are drafting a Constitution that
when ratified, will be the highest covenant between our people and their
government. We are humbled by the sheer majesty of this task. It is beyond
our means to promise a covenant that will redeem our people from the
bondage of centuries of poverty, disease and injustice, and that will bring
them to a promised land flowing with milk and honey. But it is within our
means to forge, with common dedicated labors, a framework of law and
justice that will honor the humanity in every man and put the odds of the
unending struggle for justice on earth on the side of the just and the faithful
among Your children.
Extend to us, O Lord, the grace of Your own covenant with Your people. Help
us so that we may live up to our name as the one Christian nation in Asia, a
Christian nation graced by a new and stronger solidarity with our Muslim
brothers in Mindanao. Help us frame a covenant between our people and
their government that will heal all remaining wounds and bitterness from the
past, that will forge a lasting solidarity among us through the structures of a
just society, but always under the grace of Your Divine inspiration and
guidance. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
*
*
Natividad
Nieva
Nolledo
Ople
Padilla
Quesada
Rama
Regalado
Reyes de los
Rigos
Rodrigo
Romulo
Rosales
Sarmiento
Suarez
Sumulong
Tadeo
Tan
Tingson
Treas
Uka
Villacorta
Villegas
Present *
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present *
Present
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the
previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolutions on First
Reading, Communications and Committee Report, the President making the
corresponding references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 473, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON THE TRANSITORY
PROVISIONS A PROVISION AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO REVIEW ALL
CONTRACTS, CONCESSIONS, PERMITS, OR OTHER FORMS OF PRIVILEGES FOR
THE EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, EXPLOITATION OR UTILIZATION OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES ENTERED INTO, GRANTED, ISSUED OR ACQUIRED
BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION, AND TO AMEND,
MODIFY OR REVOKE THE SAME.
Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 474, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION THAT UNTIL THE NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY FIRST ELECTED UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL HAVE ELECTED
THE SPEAKER, THE INCUMBENT VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL BE THE PRESIDING
OFFICER THEREOF.
184, 191, 202, 209, 210, 226, 237, 242, 245, 250, 258, 261, 274, 287, 293,
297 and 314.
Sponsored by Hon. Laurel, Jr., Bernas, Davide, Jr., Bengzon, Jr., Abubakar,
Colayco, Sarmiento, Tadeo, Garcia, Villegas, Rodrigo, Bennagen, Lerum,
Bacani, Padilla and Natividad:
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized for an
information.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Good morning.
Madam President, may I announce to the Commission that, in line with the
results of the caucus of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Steering
Committee the other day, it was decided that the last day for the filing of
proposed resolutions will be on July 15; thereafter, whatever proposals the
Commissioners may have will be introduced already as amendments.
Likewise, may I take this opportunity to announce that if we finish the Article
on the Judiciary today, the Steering Committee intends to schedule the
period of sponsorship and debate and also the period of amendments on
Monday for Committee Report Nos. 19 and 20 with respect to the Civil
Service Commission and the Commission on Audit.
So, may I alert the Chairman and members of the Committee on
Constitutional Commissions and Agencies to be prepared for Monday in the
event that we finish the Article on the Judiciary today.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, in-response to the announcement of the
Chairman of the Steering Committee regarding our reports, I wonder if it is
courts that this provision is not merely directory but mandatory. Hence, we
decided to change the word shall to MUST which is stronger. However, the
present provision shall apply after the effectivity of the present Constitution.
Insofar as cases filed before the effectivity of the present Constitution are
concerned, Chief Justice Teehankee informed us that it is physically
impossible to apply the period. That is why we have recommended in the
Transitory Provisions that the court shall take such proper means for the
early disposition of cases filed before the effectivity of the present
Constitution. Am I clear?
MR. TADEO: Kung sa kabila nito ay lumagpas pa rin ang 24 na buwan na wala
pang desisyon, ano po ang epekto nito?
MR. TREAS: As clarified by our Chairman, who was a former Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, while we did not put it very clearly, we feel that this will
now constitute a violation of the Constitution. Furthermore, the
Commissioner will note that we added a new provision to Section 14,
subsection 2, which says:
A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon
the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of
Court or by the court itself.
So, the Constitution itself clarifies when a case or matter is deemed
submitted for decision.
Furthermore, we added another new provision, subsection 3, which says:
Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect
signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued
and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served
upon the parties.
Therefore, there will now appear in the record of the case the fact that said
period has already expired because the corresponding certification shall be
issued and, therefore, the parties adversely affected may take such
appropriate action they may deem necessary and proper.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Tadeo satisfied?
MR. TREAS: Am I clear?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. TREAS: Thank you very much.
figure, to something like P1.2 billion. That is the basis for your Committee
recommending a two percent for the Judiciary.
MR.-MONSOD: Is the Committee aware that the budget for 1986 is about
P114 billion?
MR. SUAREZ: We took that into account also. In other words, the figure based
on two percent could be increased from year to year. The three main features
of this particular provision are: one, there must be a fixed budget for the
Judiciary; second, it must be automatically appropriated; and third, it must
be regularly released without need of provocation on the part of the Judiciary.
Those were our main concern.
MR. MONSOD: If the provision were imposed, say, this year, the budget for
1986 as originally provided was about P750 million, of which about P10
million was for capital expenditures. If this two-percent automatic provision
stays in the Constitution, the budget for the Judiciary for 1986 will be
increased to P2.2 billion, almost three times the original budget.
My concern, is that a fixed percentage like this would be tantamount to a
preemption by the Judiciary of the budget process and priorities which do not
belong to the Judiciary. Even if it is assumed that the Judiciary needs to
increase the salaries of its personnel and it needs one-time expenditures for
capital requirements, the P2.2 billion seems to be far in excess of what the
Judiciary would need at the moment.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is, therefore, suggesting that it should be
reduced to reasonable levels?
MR. MONSOD: My suggestion is to introduce an amendment at the
appropriate time that would assure fiscal autonomy to the Judiciary which I
assume is the primary objectiveand at the same time, for it not to impose
an undue burden on the budget by means of an arbitrary allocation that may
not have a basis on the actual requirements, both operating expenses and
capital expenditures.
MR. SUAREZ: The way we understand the reason for Chief Justice
Teehankees suggesting a three-percent budget based on the total national
budget is that the Judiciary may need funds for the construction of buildings
and also the possible regionalization of the Intermediate Appellate Court.
MR. MONSOD: I concede that there may be a one-time need for capital
expenditures, but let us remember that when we put a section like this in the
Constitution, this now becomes a recurring allocation from year to year. But
at some point in time, capital expenditures may not be needed; the Judiciary
will then have excess funds. I agree that the integrity of the people in the
Judiciary is such that, perhaps, they will be prudent to return some of the
money.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Unfortunately, considering human nature and the nature of
bureaucracy, expenditures usually expand to the amount of money available.
We may then really be taking money away from more priority expenditures.
For example, the budget for the entire University of the Philippines System is
about P676 million. The budget for the entire secondary education is about
P894 million. So, if we perpetuate this, we may be really prioritizing wrongly
the needs of the people, with respect to the funds in excess of the real needs
of the Judiciary.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman mentioned a possible situation where the
allocation would exceed the actual needs of the Judiciary. Let us rely on the
integrity of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; he would certainly take
steps for the reversion of these appropriated funds to the National Treasury.
That is the normal course of . . .
MR. MONSOD: My suggestion is that we institutionalize some safeguards so
that we do not rely solely on the integrity and prudence of the Judiciary.
MR. SUAREZ: If the Gentleman has in mind a practical and effective measure
in order that at least this matter of independence of the Judiciary can be
secured, the Committee will be very happy to accept any suggestion.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: May I only add to the thinking of a practical solution. One
problem here is that the administration of justice and, therefore, the delivery
of justice to our people is always put at the bottom of the list. The end of
government is to deliver justice, so the priority should be number one. We
have to point out to the legislature because it often forgets that beyond
the economic needs, there is at least an equal need for justice. We cannot
have an efficient delivery of justice through the courts without the
corresponding appropriations. I do not necessarily disagree with the
Gentleman but I think we have to keep in mind that in the order of priorities,
justice should certainly be on top.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think there is no dispute as to the
priority of justice. There may be a dispute as to the priority of buildings as
against expenditures for essential services. Maybe we can take all that into
consideration during the period of amendments.
At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Renato
V. Sarmiento.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner Guingona is
recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
In his response, Commissioner Treas said that when the Chief Justice
appeared before the Committee, he asserted that it was physically
impossible these are the words used by the Commissioner for the
Supreme Court to render decision within 18 months as provided for. Am I
correct?
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Sarmiento):
Commissioner
Romulo
is
MR. CONCEPCION: There are about 5,000 old cases pending in the Supreme
Court. In the lower courts, there are about 538,000. Let us limit ourselves to
the Supreme Court. If we seek to adopt identical measures to finish old and
new cases, it would be impossible for the court to reduce its backlog, apart
from the psychological effect on the justices. A new justice, perhaps, would
have to begin with about 1,000 old cases in addition to the cases that may
be filed hereafter. So, we thought that the old cases should be the object of a
plan or method or treatment different or separate from the new cases. The
draft proposed by the Committee imposes in a mandatory manner a period
of 24 months for the new cases filed with the Supreme Court. But with
respect to the old cases, plans should be made not only for the Supreme
Court but also for the lower courts for the reduction of the backlog.
Psychologically, when a justice has so many cases, he knows it is impossible
for him to dispose of them during his tenure or term. The psychological effect
is to say: What is the use? At any rate, it is impossible for me. But if we
give him means to keep up with the new cases and then dispose of some of
the old cases, that would show him that he is given ample opportunity to
contribute to the reduction of the backlog with reference to the old cases. He
may develop a certain feeling of security that the job is not beyond his
capacity to
handle properly. So, there are two policies there: one, with respect to the old
cases; and the other, all those that may be filed hereafter.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
But a reading of Section 14 shows that there is no distinction made as to
cases, such that all cases do not refer to prospective or back cases. I thought
the Gentleman may be referring also to the backlog of 50,000 cases that the
honorable Commissioner Concepcion had mentioned.
MR. CONCEPCION: No distinction was made in that paragraph or section
because the period prescribed in the previous paragraph refers to cases filed
hereafter.
MR. GUINGONA: I see. Thank you.
Considering the concept of justice delayed is justice denied, I was also
wondering whether it would be in the interest of justice for the justices of the
Supreme Court to tackle the prospective cases, and then take up little by
little the back cases, or whether to first give preference to back cases
because some of them have been pending for many, many years, as
mentioned by Commissioner Tadeo. If we go immediately to the prospective
cases because these are the cases that the new justices of the Supreme
Court will be able to appreciate better, what happens to the back cases?
MR. CONCEPCION: I will put it this way: I had occasion to mention yesterday
that there are 1,700 judges, excluding those of the Supreme Court, as of
now. If each one disposes of one case a month among those which are
debated and which are backlogs, every month there would be 1,700 cases
less in the backlog. In 10 months that would be 17,000 cases, and in 12
months, it would be 20,000 while the new cases are being disposed of within
the period newly established for them. I think that will contribute
considerably to unclogging the docket. However, we have to consider
another problem. We have had, in effect, three reorganizations since the
proclamation of martial law. When martial law was proclaimed, all judges
were required to file their resignations. We can imagine its psychological
effect upon the incumbents at the time. At this point in time, it is only human
for judges to think What is the use? They may be dismissed from the
service, or something else may happen resulting in their transfer to another
station. The disenchantment of the judges affected is understandable.
The reorganization also took place in 1980 with the same effect. With the
present revolutionary government, there is, in effect, the same sword
dangling over the heads of all judges in the Philippines. We hope that these
things do not happen again; that no reorganization shall take place at the
expense of the tenure of incumbent judges. Otherwise, reorganizations
would affect the morale of the Judiciary.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
May I add a parenthetical remark. Under Proclamation No. 3, Her Excellency,
the President, had set one year for government reorganization. So, as far as
the Judiciary is concerned, the reorganization is not yet completed. We will
have to wait for one year, from the time Proclamation No. 3 was promulgated
before the sword dangling over their heads . . .
MR. CONCEPCION: But still the sword is hanging and that has a very
deleterious effect.
MR. GUINGONA: I was told that I have only three minutes more. I was
referring to the Supreme Court, not to the lower courts, when I asked the
question because the Gentleman mentioned that there are 50,000 cases in
the Supreme Court that have not yet been decided.
MR. CONCEPCION: No, about 5,000.
MR. GUINGONA: Even then, 5,000 is a large number of cases.
The second question has reference to Section 9, about the administrative
supervision over all courts to be retained in the Supreme Court. I was
wondering if the Committee had taken into consideration the proposed
MR. ROMULO: No, he concurred that they could work on the new cases but
not the old cases. We precisely asked him how many months he thought they
would need because this would now be mandatory.
MR. GUINGONA: I thank the Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The honorable Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Aquino be recognized.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Sarmiento):
The
Honorable
Aquino
is
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I refer the Commissioner to Section 2
on the power of the National Assembly to define, prescribe and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts. Does the Gentleman contemplate giving to
the National Assembly, likewise, the power to add to the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court?
MR. CONCEPCION: This Section 2 was part of Section 1 of the 1973
Constitution. Therefore, we did not intend to give or withdraw from the
National Assembly any of these powers.
MS. AQUINO: How does this section contemplate the power to abolish courts?
May the legislature enact a statute declaring an existing judicial position
vacant?
MR. CONCEPCION: What section is this?
MS. AQUINO: With regard to the same section, Mr. Presiding Officer, how does
this contemplate the power of the National Assembly to abolish the court?
MR. CONCEPCION: This is part of the 1973 Constitution.
MS. AQUINO: As to Section 1, how does this portion treat the matter of
political questions or nonjusticiable controversies?
MR. CONCEPCION: That is a very nice question.
I had occasion to explain at the beginning of my remarks yesterday that the
committee members were worried about the inaction of the Supreme Court
over some of the most important cases, both from the legal and the national
viewpoint, in view of the allegation that the issue before them was a political
the
the
the
the
MS. AQUINO: Finally, on the matter of exemption from tax of the salary of
justices, does this not violate the principle of the uniformity of taxation and
the principle of equal protection of the law? After all, tax is levied not on the
salary but on the combined income, such that when the judge receives a
salary and it is commingled with the other income, we tax the income, not
the salary. Why do we have to give special privileges to the salary of
justices?
MR. CONCEPCION: It is the independence of the Judiciary. We prohibit the
increase or decrease of their salary during their term. This is an indirect way
of decreasing their salary and affecting the independence of the judges.
MR. AQUINO: I appreciate that to be in the nature of a clause to respect
tenure, but the special privilege on taxation might, in effect, be a violation of
the principle of uniformity in taxation and the equal protection clause.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Lerum be recognized for the clarificatory
question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: Will the distinguished sponsor answer just one or two questions?
MR. CONCEPCION: With pleasure.
MR. LERUM: Under the 1973 Constitution which provides for 15 justices,
cases have accumulated to such an extent that the said court was even
unable to comply with the requirement that cases should be decided within
18 months. However, under the proposed amendment, this number is being
reduced to 11. May we know the reason for the reduction?
MR. CONCEPCION: In the first place, the membership of 15 provided in the
1973 Constitution did not help increase the output of the Supreme Court. On
the other hand, in many respects, it was a deterrent to the speedy
disposition of cases. Of course, one other factor is the economy, I mean, the
cost of operating a court. Then, too, it is easier for the 11 to reach a
consensus than the 15. At any rate, the court in the past seldom had a full
complement of 15 justices the usual thing has been a court of 11 or 12.
And considering the number of votes required for certain matters, that
constituted a further deterrent to the speedy disposition of cases.
MR. LERUM: We realize that, Mr. Presiding Officer, but I think the cure for this
is to put into this Constitution a provision that vacancies in the Supreme
Court must be filled within one month or two months because that is one
way of ensuring a full complement of 15. Does the Commissioner not think
that that is the more reasonable action to be taken in this regard?
MR. CONCEPCION: As I mentioned, 15 is more unwieldy than 11.
MR. LERUM: We realize that also, but will 15 people studying all the cases
appealed to the Supreme Court not produce more than the 11?
MR. CONCEPCION: Theoretically, yes, but it all depends also upon who are
appointed to the Supreme Court.
MR. LERUM: We have a new President and new appointees now. Does the
Commissioner not think that by adding some more to these people already
appointed, their output will be more?
MR. CONCEPCION: The President barely knows the appointees, I mean, their
professional performance and potentialities. I will tell of one case: There was
a justice in the Supreme Court who went on sick leave for two months. Then
he returned to the Philippines. At the end of the year, he had disposed of
more cases than those who worked with the Supreme Court for 12 months.
The problem really is in the selection of the best men. It is just Like most
everything, I suppose. Every young man tries to marry the best woman but
very often, what he thought the best was the worst. This is part of the
imperfections of human beings, I suppose.
MR. LERUM: I will come to another point regarding the amendment which
provides that all cases filed after the approval of the Constitution shall be
decided within 24 months. I am worried about what is going to happen to
these pending cases in the Supreme Court because with that provision, the
members of the Supreme Court will devote their time to the new cases being
filed and neglect the cases that should have been decided by them within 18
months as provided by the present Constitution.
Does the Commissioner not think that this is unfair to the litigants with cases
pending with the Supreme Court?
MR. CONCEPCION: I have explained to Commissioner Aquino that there is a
paragraph or section requiring the Supreme Court to adopt a system
whereby the backlog can be gradually reduced. I stated that I suppose all
judges, including justices, if they have an output of, let us say, five cases a
month, could easily make six cases a month just one addition, one of the
old pending.
can bring this matter to the attention of the honorable Chief Justice, perhaps
it may resolve pending cases much faster. There was a judge whose neck I
nearly grabbed because he would not issue an order for attachment unless
there was P1,000 underneath the table. When the P1,000 was put under the
papers of the case, in one minute the order for preliminary attachment was
signed.
This is with regard to Section 6 (4) on page 3 which says:
The regular members of the Council shall receive such emoluments, and the
ex-officio members shall receive such allowances, as may be determined by
the Supreme Court.
We have in the general provisions a prohibition on double compensation. I
think this was filed by the honorable Commissioner Davide. Allowances are
considered double compensation in our general provisions. I think this
subsection 4 needs a reconciliation by the Committee on Style.
MR. ROMULO: That is a good point. Precisely, we are taking that into account.
So, whatever the Commissioner decides in the General Provisions, we will
abide by it. It is a present concept that allowances are not considered double
compensation. But if the new Constitution considers allowances double
compensation, we will delete this provision.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
MR. CONCEPCION: There is another reason, which is, that those assigned to a
Judicial and Bar Council will have their hands full for years and there is no
end to it. So at least they are entitled to transportation expenses. Even the
ex-officio members particularly would have to spend transportation expenses
for the discharge of their duties.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, in our deliberations, we did not
consider transportation expenses an allowance because one asks for
reimbursement for what he spends for his transportation.
At this juncture, the Presiding Officer relinquished the Chair to the Honorable
Renato V. Sarmiento.
MR. CONCEPCION: So, the Commissioner suggest that instead of the word
allowance, it be ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED. I do not know if the
Committee would consider that matter favorably.
MR. DE CASTRO: I think the Committee will consider that because during the
past regime a Cabinet member was receiving as much as P100,000 in
allowances only. I think that was the reason the Honorable Davide filed that
motion which we took as a very good one. On page 4, subsection 3 states:
Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest
may require. Such temporary assignment shall not last longer than six
months without the consent of the judge concerned.
I have a case under a judge who comes from Cavite assigned in the Regional
Trial Court of Bian. While our case was under pretrial, his six months
assignment had elapsed and he waited for his order for reassignment. Until
now, I have not heard about my case which has been under pretrial since
October 1985. I really wonder how long a pretrial case could last, if we have
this system of assignment of judges every six months by the Supreme Court.
I suggest that we assign a permanent judge who could handle voluminous
cases. I hope this matter could be remedied.
Subsection 5, lines 22 to 24, states:
. . . Rules of Procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall take
effect upon approval by the Supreme Court.
We resolved in the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies
that quasi-judicial bodies, such as the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Audit and the Commission on Elections, shall decide their
cases within 60 days based on the rules they submit to the Supreme Court
for approval. I really wonder how the Supreme Court can immediately
approve or disapprove such rules. I presume that the reason for this is to
give administrative due process to whoever the respondent is, and these
quasi-judicial bodies are ever aware of administrative due process on the
cases they handle. I really wonder if this could be made in the reverse such
that the rules and procedures promulgated by quasi-judicial bodies should
take effect until repealed, revised or amended by the Supreme Court. If we
wait for the approval of the rules by the Supreme Court, just as we have
waited for the decisions within 24 months on our cases handled by the
Supreme Court under Section 14, I wonder how these quasi-judicial bodies
could terminate their cases within 60 days as mandated by the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Rustico de los Reyes be recognized.
In the 1971 Constitutional Convention where the same question was raised,
Delegate Julias had this comment which turned the tide and resulted in the
disapproval of giving the state the right to appeal:
There is reason to commend but the reasons against far outweigh the
reasons in favor.
In the first place, it would tend to multiplicity of suits; it would increase the
burden of the Supreme Court. Second, it would be expensive if we meet
fiscals who have an exaggerated opinion of themselves and who have more
professional pride or amor propio than gray matter their heads.
Let me give an example: Here is a farmer or a poor laborer who is lucky
because he was acquitted. But his opponent happens to be a millionaire who
can afford to get a top-notch lawyer to prepare a petition for certiorari, so
instead of enjoying his freedom after having languished in jail for two years
or three years, he finds himself again exposed to the jeopardy of being
convicted because of that appeal by the state.
I have heard the assurances of certain sponsors that he will be set free in the
meanwhile. But the general rule is that while the appeal is pending, the
judgment is not final and generally the accused would continue to languish in
jail. Assuming he will be set free, the temptation to flee on the part of the
accused who was found guilty is very great because he does not know
whether he will be convicted again by the Supreme Court. Although there is
a saying that the innocent is as bold as a lion while the wicked flees, that is
not true in reality. A man who is afraid he might get convicted by the
Supreme Court is tempted to flee. I think we are saying that the Supreme
Court is infallible, that it will not and cannot commit any mistake; that it is
the lower court that usually commits the mistake.
One retired Justice of the Supreme Court told me that the only difference
between a lawyer committing a mistake when he cites the Roman Law and
the Supreme Court committing a mistake is that the lawyer loses the case
while the Supreme Courts mistake becomes the supreme law of the land,
because the Supreme Court is supreme even in its errors.
I, therefore, believe, that the mischief sought to be prevented by allowing the
state to appeal due to occasional mistakes of the lower court in acquitting,
perhaps, a guilty person is nothing compared to the mischief and injustice a
poor accused will suffer. It will open the gates to endless appeals. It will clog
the dockets of the Supreme Court which will be hard put in determining even
preliminarily the existence of a ground that the decision was manifestly
against the evidence and with grave abuse of discretion.
Mr. Presiding Officer, why should we discourage appeal by the state? The
controlling consideration is the inequality of the parties in power, situation
and advantage in criminal cases where the government with its unlimited
resources, trained detectives, willing officers and counsel learned in the law,
stood arrayed against a single defendant unfamiliar with the practice of the
courts, unacquainted with their officers or attorneys, often without means
and frequently too terrified to make a defense, if he had one, while his
character and his life, liberty, or property rested upon the result of the trial.
Here is an accused who, after already suffering enough by undergoing a long
and rigorous trial while languishing in jail, gets acquitted. Finally, the state
appeals. Not even the most corrupt soul in the Judiciary, not even the most
corrupt judge in the lower courts, could be so dismally insensitive as to
pronounce the exculpation of a defendant without looking at the proof.
Here is another reasons the state should not be granted appeal. In the case
of Greene v. United States, 355, U.S., 184, 1957, it says:
The underlying idea is that the State, with all its resources and powers,
should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for
an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and
ordeal, and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and
insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he
may be found guilty.
I hope with these observations the sponsor will reconsider his proposal to
allow the state to appeal.
Thank you.
MR. CONCEPCION: I refer the matter to Commissioner Padilla.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The honorable Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The Honorable Ople is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Does Commissioner de los Reyes not want a reply from the
Committee?
DE LOS REYES: I took a seat because I have no more questions to ask. The
Committee may reply, if it so desires.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: We would like Commissioner Padilla to reply for a few minutes.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDING
recognized.
OFFICER
(Mr.
Sarmiento):
The
Honorable
Padilla
is
and Rule 122 (1) of the Rules of Court in the sense that an appeal to the
Supreme Court on a question of law is no longer a matter of right.
The Supreme Court has the discretion to give due course to the appeal or to
deny it outright. That is one remedy to prevent the clogging of the dockets of
this court. We hold that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of
First Instance is void for lack of appellate jurisdiction, corum non judice. So
even under our present law, an appeal may be had by the state or by the
fiscal when the trial court or the lower court whether acting in appellate or
original jurisdiction has no jurisdiction. When there is a question of error of
jurisdiction, the remedy is by certiorari, as distinguished from an error of
judgment which is not covered by petitions for certiorari.
In the case of the United States v. Kepner, a Philippine case (11 Phil. 669)
that reached the U.S. Federal Supreme Court (195 U-S 100), Justice Holmes,
in his dissenting opinion, stated:
It seems to me that, logically and rationally, a man cannot be said to be
more than once in jeopardy in the same case however often he may be tried.
The jeopardy is one continuing jeopardy from its beginning to the end of the
cause. One may be accused of manslaughter that is the equivalent of
homicide, and yet, if the victim dies, he may be prosecuted and convicted for
murder.
This remark or observation of Justice Holmes is embodied in Rule 117,
Section 7 on Former Conviction or Acquittal, Double Jeopardy, which added
under However, new provisions; paragraphs a, b and c. These new
provisions of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure read:
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another
prosecution or an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in
the former complaint or information under any of the following instances:
(a) The graver offense developed due to intervening facts arising from the
same act or omission constituting the former charge . . .
An example is this paragraph (a) where the victim suffered serious physical
injuries and the accused pleaded guilty and was convicted. But thereafter,
the victim died and there was a judicial proceeding, not for the lesser offense
or serious physical injuries but for the graver offense of homicide. There are
other exceptions acknowledged by the Supreme Court in the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure, and I quote:
(b) The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were
discovered only after the filing of the formal complaint or information. Or,
(c) The plea of guilt to the lesser offense was made without the consent of
the fiscal and of the offended party.
Mr. Presiding Officer, the opinion of Justice Holmes in the Kepner case says:
The Constitution permits a second trial in the same case. The reason, I
submit, is that there can be but one jeopardy in one case. Then he
concludes:
A second trial in the same case must be regarded as only a continuation of
the jeopardy which began with the trial below.
Mr. Presiding Officer, the opinion of Justice Holmes even speaks of a new
trial, but the proposal is limited to an appeal by petition for review on
certiorari based on the ground already in the record of the same case with
out further a new trial proceeding. When the judge who rendered a judgment
of acquittal or dismissal has disregarded manifestly the evidence on record,
his conduct is with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
It may be said that the opinion of Justice Holmes was a dissenting view in the
Kepner case. That dissenting opinion has become the majority opinion by the
decision penned by Justice Cardoso in Palko v. Connecticut, 302, U.S. 310
which involved the following decision:
A statute of Connecticut permitting appeals in criminal cases to be taken by
the State is challenged by appellants as an infringement of the 14th
amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The argument was that the effect of the new trial was to place the accused
twice in jeopardy for the same offense and in so doing violated the 14th
amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In this decision, after
discussing the principle of double jeopardy, it made express reference to the
United States v. Kepner case in 1904 by a closely divided court. Justice
Cardoso said, and I quote:
. . . Dissenting opinions show how much was to be said in favor of a different
ruling. Right-minded men, as we learn from those opinions, could reasonably,
even mistakenly, believe that a second trial was lawful in prosecutions
subject to the Fifth Amendment, if it was all in the same case. Even more
plainly, right-minded men could reasonably believe that in espousing that
conclusion they were not favoring a practice repugnant to the conscience of
mankind. Is double jeopardy in such circumstances, if double jeopardy it
must be called, a denial of due process forbidden to the State?
After discussing other basic principles of the Constitution, like the right
against self-incrimination or not to be a witness against oneself, the right of
party. This provision does not allow the state nor the offended party an
absolute right to appeal. There must be a petition for review on certiorari
based on the grounds mentioned that are very restrictive. Such a petition
may even be dismissed outright in the discretion of the Supreme Court. But
there must be an avenue for the correct and sound administration of justice.
Many of us always talk of the accused and we never remember the mention
of the crime, the complainant, and the offended party. The complainant is
entitled to justice as much as the accused. And to say that the offended
party is rich and the accused is poor, I feel that the situation is just the
reverse. Oftentimes, those who commit crimes, those who disobey the Ten
Commandments and violate the tenets of good conscience in society are the
rich, the powerful, the influential, and the victims are the poor, the
underprivileged, the oppressed. That is the real situation. We cannot
overlook it and claim in general terms that this proposal will only benefit the
accused who are poor.
So, in the light of the abuse, Mr. Presiding Officer, the question is: Would an
appeal by petition for review on certiorari constitute double jeopardy?
Double jeopardy really means a separate, a new proceeding. In other words,
based on the same fact, Mr. Veridiano has been prosecuted and another trial
or another case is filed to prosecute the same accused for the same act and
for the same offense. That is the essence of double jeopardy. But as stated
by Justice Holmes, even an appeal is not a separate trial. It is a continuation
of the same case. And in the cases that I quoted, especially the case of Palko
v. Connecticut, which contemplated not only a new trial, a separate trial, but
even an ordinary appeal, our proposal is very restrictive in the sense that it
does not justify a new trial, much less, a separate trial. And then, it is not a
matter of right but of discretion of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court
has jurisdiction over all cases involving the jurisdiction of the courts.
Thank you very much.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I make a short rejoinder to
Commissioner Padillas comment?
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: A reservation was made by Commissioner Ople to speak en
contra and he is the last speaker. With respect to the request of
Commissioner Rustico de los Reyes, I am registering him under the period of
amendments. He will have all his time there.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The Honorable Ople is recognized.
the Chief Justice addressing the National Assembly, but, perhaps, we can
allow him to do so on the second day or any other day, not on the first day.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I spoke of certain legislative powers assumed here. And,
earlier, Commissioner Aquino has adverted to that and stated that my
objection is on a different ground from her. I think it must be understood that
the legislative power should be exercised by the legislature even if there is a
sense in which the Supreme Court may be accorded all the autonomy that it
desires for formulating rules that have to do with their own function; that the
advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court is stated as a requirement
before the National Assembly can exercise its own law-making power. I think
this is a real diminution of the legislative power that should remain
unimpaired.
And, again, in Section 2 of the proposed Article, the legislature is restrained
from exercising its authority to reorganize the government where the
security of tenure of the Judiciary might be impaired. I think we should
dissociate security of tenure from the exercise of legislative power. There
must be a strong guarantee for security of tenure, but not put in such a way
as to tie the hands of the lawmaking power in what I consider a very
inappropriate intrusion into the field of law-making.
So, these are some of what I said earlier would be a macro approach to the
proposed Article on the Judiciary. And having said that, I just would like to
pose two or three questions to the sponsor, if he will yield.
MR. CONCEPCION: With pleasure.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
During the period of amendments, can the sponsor consider an amendment
wherein they might consider returning the management of the courts to the
executive branch of the government?
MR. CONCEPCION: I did not get the question.
MR. OPLE: I have in mind Section 9 on page 5, which says: The Supreme
Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof, and another section provides that the appointing power for court
officials, and personnel is also vested in the Supreme Court.
Is the deliberation of the Committee so far gone and their commitment so
firm to the management of the courts by the Supreme Court that they may
no longer be able to consider during the period of amendments a proposal to
revert the administration of the courts to the executive branch of the
R.C.C. NO. 29
Monday, July 14, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:35 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Vice-President, the Honorable Ambrosio B. Padilla.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. PADILLA: Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, Master of Mankind and
our Sovereign Lord, without Thee, we can do nothing; with Thee, nothing is
impossible. Thou madest possible the political miracle of February 22-25
through the peaceful revolution of the people, a unique event unknown in
the
history of our Asian neighbors and unprecedented in our own history. Our
people succeeded without violence in terminating and in toppling down the
dictatorship which had been entrenched in absolute power during 14 years of
martial misrule. More things are wrought by prayers than this world dreams
of.
Lord, many a time in the past, Thou hast shown deep affection for our
country and abiding love for our people.
God of power and light, come to our aid again, in this our delicate
responsibility of formulating a new and permanent constitution. We must
solicit and
beseech Thine Divine Providence for aid and guidance, to enlighten our
minds, to instill understanding in our hearts and to fortify our resolve to labor
assiduously with devotion and dedication, so that we may submit to our
sovereign people a fundamental charter that will not only embody our ideals
and
aspirations but also assure a just society, an honest government, a
responsive administration with the blessings of truth, justice, freedom, peace
and
progress in a living and effective democracy.
Beloved Mother Mary, You have never abandoned, but have ever extended,
Your motherly affection and love to our people. In these days of our need for
Your
assistance, we pray that You be with us today and always, to bless our
people with a better life and for all to enjoy a government not only of and by
the
people, but more importantly, for the people. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Monsod
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Aquino
Present
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present
Ople
Present *
Bengzon
Present
Padilla
Present
Bennagen
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bernas
Present *
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Present
Brocka
Present *
Reyes de los
Present *
Calderon
Present *
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Present
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present *
Sarmiento
Present
Foz
Present
Suarez
Present
Garcia
Present *
Sumulong
Present *
Gascon
Present *
Tadeo
Present *
Guingona
Present
Tan
Absent
Jamir
Present
Tingson
Absent
Laurel
Present *
Treas
Present
Lerum
Present
Uka
Absent
Maambong
Present *
Villacorta
Present *
Letter from the Personnel Officers Association of the Philippines, Inc., signed
by Mr. Bayani A. Aquino, recommending certain provisions on the Civil
Service.
(Communication No. 177 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Resolution Mo. 217 of Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City, proposing to
abolish the integration of the local police and the Philippine Constabulary
and to
return the administrative supervision and control of local police to the
mayors.
(Communication No. 178 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Telegram from Mr. Enrique Soriano of Iloilo City proposing the adoption of the
jury system.
(Communication No. 179 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
Letter from Mr. Rey Iyog of Sugbongcogon, Misamis Oriental, requesting the
inclusion of a provision that would expedite the resolution of cases in the
courts.
(Communication No. 180 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
Resolution of the Federation of Senior Citizens of the Province of Albay
suggesting the inclusion of a provision giving due recognition to senior
citizens.
(Communication No. 181 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Major Amador R. Tanael, Jr. of the Regional Special Action Force
Batallion, PC/INP Regional Command 4, requesting the inclusion of a
provision
integrating into the regular force of the AFP reserve officers who have
rendered ten or more years active service.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is not an amendment for which I am
willing to put my life on the line. But may I be clarified on the intention of
the Committee in not accepting this amendment?
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes, because it is a duplication which we see as
unnecessary. Generally, constitutional provisions are brief, concise but allembracing.
That is a policy acknowledged in constitution-making.
MS. AQUINO: But do I understand it correctly that when the second
paragraph was formulated, the idea was to provide in the inclusive
formulation the duty
of the courts to settle actual controversies and affirmatively asserting that it
is likewise the duty of the courts to positively provide for the redress
of wrongs for the violations of such rights?
MR. CONCEPCION: How would the Commissioner phrase the paragraph in
question?
MS. AQUINO: On line 6, Section 1, after the word and, insert the phrase
THE REDRESS OF WRONGS FOR VIOLATIONS OF SUCH RIGHTS . . .
MR. CONCEPCION: Settle actual controversies involving rights. That would
be a redundancy.
MS. AQUINO: . . . which are legally demandable and inforceable and THE
REDRESS OF WRONGS FOR VIOLATIONS OF SUCH RIGHTS.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the position of the Committee is that it is
unnecessary and we are willing to admit on record that the Commissioners
amendment is not acceptable because it is already included in the second
paragraph of Section 1, particularly in relation to Section 7 (5).
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, on the strong representation of
Commissioner Romulo, I understand it correctly that it is the implicit
intention of the
Committee to likewise read into this provision this kind of a duty on the part
of the court.
I am respectfully withdrawing my amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Thank you very much, Commissioner
Aquino.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
part of the equities that may and should be considered by the court in
deciding the case. Those equities are lacking in hypothetical cases.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just to leave this point, Mr. Presiding Officer, is it, therefore,
the decision of the Committee that declaratory relief is actually an
actual controversy? Is that the thinking of the Committee?
MR. CONCEPCION: Determination of what is the law, as between two parties
who have a conflict based upon what the law is or whether there is any law,
would
be an actual controversy.
MR. MAAMBONG: And in the same category, Mr. Presiding Officer, quieting of
title, for example, would also be an actual controversy.
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Aquino be recognized to amend Section
3.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
May I preface my amendment to Section 3 (2) by noting that there is a
growing tendency of governments to accumulate more and more power on
the pretext of
promoting general welfare, and that tendency is practically irresistible, such
that for any provision on judicial review to be meaningful, the exercise of
the power of judicial review should be feasible and viable, unfettered by the
daunting constraints of meeting a high number to be able to strike down a
law
as unconstitutional.
I was wondering if the Committee would consider an amendment by deletion
of the words plus one on lines 23, 24 and 25, or in the alternative, if that is
retained, to delete the whole phrase of the members who actually
participated when the case was submitted for decision, on line 24.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): For clarity, will the Committee now,
therefore, read the provision as has been accepted?
MR. REGALADO: Section 3 (2) will, therefore, read:
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court en
banc, and no treaty, international or executive agreement, or law may be
declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of a majority plus one of
the
members.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is Commissioner Aquino satisfied?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Thank you very much.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be allowed to introduce an
amendment on Section 7 (5).
MR. RODRIGO: Anterior amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I would like to call on Commissioner Lerum for an anterior
amendment on Section 3.
MR. RODRIGO: May I just make some remarks in connection with the
amendment just accepted by the Committee. This is very important because
as a consequence
of that amendment, we should also amend the same phrase a majority of
the members who actually participated which appears on lines 31 and 32 of
page 1
and lines 2 and 3 of page 2.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, we accept that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): So for the record, may we know from
the Committee how many amendments have been accepted.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a minute, Commissioner Padilla has a
remark with regard to Commissioner Rodrigos comment.
MR. PADILLA: The phrase of the members who actually participated when
the case was submitted for decision should remain in paragraphs 3 and 4 of
Section
3 because oftentimes, the Supreme Court Justices are not in full
complement. The reasons are:
(1) vacancy or non appointment;
(2) legal disqualification;
(3) voluntary inhibition; or
(4) justices are absent or on leave.
So for some reasons, a court of eleven (11) may only have seven (7) or
maybe eight (8) members who actually participate. It is not correct to have
the
opinion of a minority of the court prevail over a majority of the members
participating. There were instances in the past where a motion for
reconsideration was decided and even a decision of conviction in a criminal
case reversed on appeal by the accused because the concurrence of eight
(8)
members, out of fifteen (15), which was the full membership of the court,
was not obtained. The full membership was usually never complete, so there
had
been instances where seven (7) voted for a motion for reconsideration which
was denied based on foul (4) or five (5) votes against. And because the
seven
votes do not constitute the majority of fifteen, the motion for reconsideration
was lost, and even the judgment of conviction in a criminal case was
reversed. That is the effect of several decisions where an aggrieved party or
the state in a criminal case or a party in a petition, or in a motion for
reconsideration received 7 votes as against 4 or 5 and yet the minority
prevailed, and that is what I denounced before as the tyranny of a minority in
the
Supreme Court.
So while I agree that in determining the validity of a treaty or the
constitutionality of a law we should have a majority or a majority plus one of
the
members because that is quite important to declare a law unconstitutional,
in all other cases we should have a majority of the members participating,
and I
MR. RODRIGO: May I just make my question very, very simple. Must a justice
be physically present during the deliberations to be considered as having
participated?
MR. CONCEPCION: As I said, he must be present in the deliberations and cast
his vote before the case is assigned to one of the members of the court for
the
presentation of the opinion.
MR. RODRIGO: So, two things must be considered: First, he must be
physically present in the deliberations and second, he must cast his vote.
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Suppose he was physically present in the deliberations and
said he would abstain, is he considered as having participated also?
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes, he participated also.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the important thing is his physical presence.
MR. CONCEPCION: No, because he has to vote also, or at least abstain from
voting.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. So if he abstained from voting but was physically present,
is he considered to have participated?
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Lerum be recognized to introduce an
amendment on Section 3.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: Mr. Presiding Officer, my amendment is on Section 3(1), line 17
which consists in the substitution of the word ten to FOURTEEN. As
amended,
Section 3(1) will read as follows: The Supreme Court shall be composed of a
Chief justice and FOURTEEN Associate Justices.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. LERUM: I think the reason here is plain common sense because 15
justices will be able to render more decisions than 11. If we reduce the
number, we are
impliedly criticizing the former members of the Supreme Court, because
under the present provision, we have 15 justices and still there is an
accumulation
of cases from around 3,000 to 5,000.
It means that these justices have not been doing their work, and I do not
think that is correct.
Therefore, in order to ease this backlog of cases, plus those that will be filed,
I am proposing that we retain the 15 justices that we have under the
present Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment,
but would prefer that the body, as a whole, decide the matter.
We are unable to accept the amendment because, firstly, the 15 slots were
never really filled up; secondly, the backlog resulted although there were
already 13 or 14 justices; and, finally, since it is a collegial body with 15 full
membership, we would need more people in putting into deliberations
before a decision is made.
MR. LERUM: May I answer? May I reply to that?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Lerum has one
minute.
MR. LERUM: On the first point where the 15 slots were never filled up, I think
that could be remedied by an amendment to the effect that in case a
vacancy
occurs in the Supreme Court, it must be filled within two months from the
date that the vacancy occurs.
On the other hand, the Gentleman said that there are around 3,000 to 5,000
cases. If we divide the work, with 5,000 cases and 11 justices, that means
that
400 cases will have to be assigned to each of these 11 justices. On the other
hand, if we have 15, that means that about 300 will be assigned for every
justice. So, with 15 justices, more decisions will be rendered. I do not agree
with the statement that 11 justices can solve the backlog of cases rather
than the 15. We cannot see the logic to that. As a matter of fact, during my
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee is willing to consider that
amendment favorably, if the proponent will make it THREE MONTHS to
enable the
President to deliberate on the matter.
MR. LERUM: I accept, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Will Commissioner Lerum kindly read
his amendments?
MR. LERUM: The amendment will read: IN CASE OF ANY VACANCY, THE SAME
SHALL BE FILLED WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE OCCURRENCE THEREOF.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Will the Gentleman yield to some questions?
MR. LERUM: Willingly.
MR. RODRIGO: The appointment under the 1973 Constitution is made by only
one man. I think in the Constitution which we are drafting, the consensus is
to
revive the Commission on Appointments. So, it is possible that the President
might appoint within three months; but if Congress is not in session and the
Commission on Appointments is part of Congress, the appointment cannot
be confirmed. Three months might be sufficient, if only one man, one
appointing
power, is involved.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Excuse me, Commissioner Rodrigo.
On page 2, Section 5 of the committee report, the appointments of the
members of the
Supreme Court and the judges of the lower courts are not subject to
confirmation.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. But I am going to file an amendment to delete that
portion and restore the power of appointment to the Commission on
Appointments instead
of that seven-man committee. So, if the Commission on Appointments is
restored, insofar as the appointment of judges is concerned, three months
might be
too short because it will involve not only choosing by the President of the
man he will appoint but actually appointing him and then having it confirmed
by
the Commission on Appointments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Would Commissioner Lerum,
therefore, agree to a deferment of that proposed amendment until such time
as the body
decides whether or not the appointment of judges and justices will have to
be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments?
MR. LERUM: I think this amendment can stand because this is a mandate on
both the President and the Commission on Appointments, if there will be one.
In
the meantime, I think an ad interim appointment can be made so that the
vacancy can be filled because our purpose here is to help the justices
perform
their functions But if, as in the past, some positions of justices are not filled,
then we are not helping in the promotion of a speedy settlement of
justice. So, I think that could be taken care of by an ad interim appointment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): In that case, we will proceed to vote.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: May we have a slight postponement? Our Chairman has to
leave the room momentarily.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The session is suspended.
It was 11:14 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:29 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Lerum be recognized.
nature
of presidential decrees. We have the Labor Code, the Insurance Code, Child
and Youth Welfare Code, Code of Muslim and Personal Laws, and I can go on.
Actually, the reason in my intention to delete the words presidential
decrees is that they have the category of law which is already mentioned
under
Section 3, paragraph 2, in contradistinction with the lower category of laws
which are mentioned in Section 3, paragraph 3. These are the proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances and other regulations which are lower in
category. We submit the proposal for comment so that we can file the
necessary
motion, if needed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Regalado will reply.
MR. REGALADO: The Committee actually took into account the matter of a
presidential decree having the status of a law. But then, we also took into
account
that under the Transitory Provisions in the 1973 Constitution, all presidential
issuances were considered part of the law of the land. While it is true
that it is generally accepted in academic circles that a presidential decree
has the standing of a statutory law, not all people have agreed that it should
be given that elevated level. The purpose here of the Committee is to avoid
any question in the future because presidential decrees may eventually be
invoked in cases before the Supreme Court. The purpose, therefore, of the
Committee is to make it specific with due respect to the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court to include presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, just to avoid any question
about the
coverage of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
MR. MAAMBONG: I just want to be clarified on the specific terms on this
matter. Is it the thinking of the Committee that presidential decrees do not
have
the status of statutory law or what is properly known by lawyers, students
and judges as statutes?
MR. PADILLA: Statutes usually refer to Republic Acts, Commonwealth Acts,
Acts of the Philippine Commission, and laws passed by the National
Assembly and
usually approved by the President.
One paragraph in the Transitory Provisions of the 1973 Constitution states
that all proclamations, presidential decrees, executive orders and letters of
instructions shall be valid and effective and shall form part of the law of the
land. I believe that is the basis for some saying that presidential
proclamations have the force and effect of law. But I believe there is a real
difference between a statute, like a Republic Act or a Batas Pambansa that
was approved by the National Assembly and a decree or proclamation issued
unilaterally by the President especially during the martial law regime.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would not go so far as to categorize presidential decrees
with general orders, letters of instructions, letters of implementation and
proclamations. I am more concerned only in presidential decrees
promulgated by the President in the exercise of his lawmaking power. At any
rate, in order
to obviate any further discussion, I would like to reiterate my motion to
delete the words presidential decrees on line 28, Section 3 (3).
MR. ROMULO: The Committee regrets that we cannot accept the
Commissioners amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: In view of my serious thinking on this matter, I would like
that this be put to a vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The body will put to a vote the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Maambong to delete presidential
decrees on line
28, Section 1, paragraph 3 on page 1.
Those in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Maambong, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor and 23 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner de Castro be recognized to present an
amendment on the same section.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengson): Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The body will put the amendment to
a vote.
Those in favor of the amendment of Commissioner de Castro, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 4 votes in favor and 18 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized to present an
amendment to Section 4.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I propose to delete the term natural-born before the word
citizen in Section 4, paragraphs (1) and (2). But before I actually propose
my
amendment, may I just ask the Chairman or any member of the Committee
two questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Just two questions.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Does the term natural-born mean that all things being considered, ethical
and professional, and qualifications of the judges, the natural-born citizen is
considered better than the naturalized citizen?
MR. CONCEPCION: We would prefer that the matter be voted upon by the
Commission. As a matter of courtesy, we feel that it should be submitted to
the body.
BISHOP BACANI: So, let me just give them the reason why I submit this
amendment. If we fear that a person who is going to be a judge or a justice
may not
yet be fully integrated into the Filipino way of life, then we can assure the
realization of that factor by means other than by disqualifying in perpetuum
a person who is not a natural-born citizen from holding any of these
positions. Besides, if we reserve these positions only to natural-born citizens
we
will be classifying our citizens into two classes. In fact, the equal rights of
so this
is a collective work.
My answer is that under the present wording of the section it does not
explicitly say that. The section goes on to read: It may exercise such other
functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it. It is within the
original contemplation of the resolutions filed that such an activity may
ultimately be handled by the Judicial and Bar Council.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Commissioner Romulo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon). The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I propose the following amendment: On
page 2, line 18, after the word President, insert the words WITH THE
CONSENT OF
THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, so that the sentence would read:
Section 5. The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts
shall be appointed
by the President WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS. Then delete everything from the word from on line 18,
page 2, until line 15, on
page 3. In other words, delete the whole provision creating the Judicial and
Bar Council.
May I explain my amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Honorable Rodrigo has five
minutes.
MR. RODRIGO: If my amendment is approved, then the provision will be
exactly the same as the provision in the 1935 Constitution, Article VIII,
Section 5.
Our experience under the 1935 Constitution regarding appointments to the
Judiciary by the President with the confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments
was very satisfactory. From President Quezon on to Osmea, Roxas, Quirino,
Magsaysay, Garcia, Macapagal and even Marcos before he declared martial
law, the
appointments to the Judiciary, especially to the Supreme Court and to the
Court of Appeals, were high class, so much so that we had the highest, the
utmost
respect for the Judiciary. Before the declaration of martial law, we regarded
the Supreme Court, up to the Concepcion Court, with awe and respect. And
so
why should we change this now, merely because of what happened during
martial law?
Mr. Presiding Officer, I have to concede that the respect and trust of the
people in the Judiciary has deteriorated since the declaration of martial law.
First of all, after martial law was declared, there was no more Commission on
Appointments; all appointments were made by only one man, by the dictator.
Secondly, with the declaration of martial law and even after the approval of
the 1973 Constitution with the transitory provisions, the security of tenure
of the justices and judges was demolished because the President, the
dictator, could remove any justice or judge by the mere expediency of
appointing his
successor. Not only that, the President, the dictator, was in office for 20
years, and so for the first time in our history, all the members of the
Supreme
Court and of the Court of Appeals and a majority of the judges of the lower
courts were appointed by just one man. And on top of that, our economy
deteriorated our currency lost its value and, consequently, the salaries
received by the members of the Judiciary were not sufficient. On top of that,
the example of graft and corruption came from above and this contaminated
the members of our Judiciary, but this is not the fault of the system of
appointment under the 1935 Constitution which we found very, very
satisfactory.
If we do not remove the proposed amendment on the creation of the Judicial
and Bar Council, this will be a diminution of the appointing power of the
highest magistrate of the land, of the President of the Philippines elected by
all the Filipino people. The appointing power will be limited by a group of
seven people who are not elected by the people but only appointed.
Mr. Presiding Officer, if this Council is created, there will be no uniformity in
our constitutional provisions on appointments. The members of the
Judiciary will be segregated from the rest of the government. Even a
municipal judge cannot be appointed by the President except upon
recommendation or
nomination of three names by this committee of seven people,
commissioners of the Commission on Elections, the COA and Commission on
Civil Service . . .
even ambassadors, generals of the Army will not come under this restriction.
Why are we going to segregate the Judiciary from the rest of our government
in
the appointment of the high-ranking officials?
Another reason is that this Council will be ineffective. It will just besmirch the
honor of our President without being effective at all because this
Council will be under the influence of the President. Four out of seven are
appointees of the President, and they can be reappointed when their term
ends.
Therefore, they would kowtow to the President. A fifth member is the Minister
of Justice, an alter ego of the President. Another member represents the
legislature. In all probability, the controlling party in the legislature belongs
to the President and, therefore, this representative from the National
Assembly is also under the influence of the President. And may I say, Mr.
Presiding Officer, that even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is an
appointee of the President. So, it is futile; he will be influenced anyway by
the President.
And on interpellation, the Committee, in answer to one of my questions, said
that if the Council submits to the President the names of three nominees and
the President does not want to appoint any of those three, the President can
ask the, Council to submit another list of three. We are inserting here a
provision which demeans the President elected by our people, the members
of the Commission on Appointments, composed of elected representatives of
the
people in our legislature.
May I have two more minutes?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Yes, I was going to say that the
Gentleman has one minute left.
MR. RODRIGO: Why should this council of seven appointed persons be more
powerful than the Commission on Appointments composed of legislators
elected by the
people? Under this proposal, this committee of seven is more powerful than
the Commission on Appointments because while the Commission on
Appointments has
the power of later or subsequent censorship, this committee has the power
of previous censorship. Before the appointment is made, this committee
already
censors.
Another reason is we will be burdening the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court with the burden of the Judiciary. I think we should not burden him
anymore.
And in practice, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be swamped by
people recommending this and that person from Aparri to Jolo. I know this.
This is practical politics. We will drag even the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court into politics.
The last reason is financial. It was stated by the Committee that we reduce
the number of members of the Supreme Court from 15 to 11 one of the
reasons
being to save money. If we create this Council with emoluments and
allowances they will have to have an office and personnel I think the
expenditure
that we will incur is much, much more than whatever amount we save by
reducing the number of justices from 15 to 11.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Thank you very much, Commissioner
Rodrigo.
What does the Committee say?
MR. CONCEPCION: The Judicial and Bar Council is no doubt an innovation. But
it is an innovation made in response to the public clamor in favor of
eliminating politics in the appointment of judges.
At present, there will be about 2,200 positions of judges, excluding those of
the Supreme Court, to be filled. We feel that neither the President alone nor
the Commission on Appointment would have the time and the means
necessary to study the background of every one of the candidates for
appointment to the
various courts in the Philippines, specially considering that we have accepted
this morning the amendment to the effect that no person shall be qualified
unless he has a proven high sense of morality and probity. These are matters
that require time, which we are sure the President does not have except,
probably, he would have to endorse the matter to the National Bureau of
Investigation or to some intelligence agency of the government. And we do
not think
that these agencies are qualified to pass upon questions of morality,
integrity and competence of lawyers.
As regards the implication that we are, in effect, depriving the President of
the power of appointment, all we do consider is the fact that the members of
the Council are all appointees of the President. They are alter egos of the
President so, in effect, they are exercising the power by virtue of the
appointment by the President. So, the alleged negation or denial or
emasculation of the appointing power of the President does not really exist
since all
members of the Council, except those who are ex-officio members who, by
the way, are also appointees of the President, are all appointees of the
President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Committee has two more
minutes. Is there anybody else in the Committee who would wish to answer?
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Colayco will answer and then I will follow him.
MR. COLAYCO: The decision of the Committee in creating the Judicial and Bar
Council was finally to establish the independence of the Judiciary. We all talk
about the independence of the three departments of our government and
everybody knows, including the interpellator, that the Judiciary is not
independent.
It is the President who chooses, names and appoints the judges and who is
the President? He is a politician. Granted that most of us know that our
present
President is somebody above politics, a lot of rumors have been going
around that politics has somehow managed to get into the present
reorganization of
the Judiciary. This is inescapable because the President owes political favors.
They are not easy to refuse or to fail to acknowledge on the part of the
President-elect.
Second, how can we say that the Judiciary is independent when it is the
Legislative that holds and controls the disbursement of funds to maintain it?
Third, the Commission on Appointments is not as sincere in its mission to
censor the qualifications of the appointees to the Judiciary as has been
mentioned by the Honorable Rodrigo because many appointees who had to
pass through the Commission on Appointments were witnesses to the fact
that some
members of the Commission on Appointments had used it to force the
appointments of other people as a compromise for the approval of those who
have been
already designated by the President. This was an open secret.
So, we felt that the creation of this Council would ensure more the
appointment of judges and justices who will be chosen for their confidence
and their
moral qualifications, rather than to favor or to give something in return for
their help in electing the President.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, in approaching this question of the
independence of the Judiciary, which I do not think anyone will dispute is a
necessary goal, the Committee has used a holistic approach as if it were a
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized to present an
amendment on the same section.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS. Mr. Presiding Officer, on page 2, Section 6 (2), lines 29 and 30,
the provision says: The regular members of the Council shall be appointed
by
the President for a term of four years. I would like to propose an
amendment by adding to the sentence the phrase WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS.
The reason for this is, in the exposition made by the Committee, the purpose
of the creation of the Judicial and Bar Council is to insulate the
appointments in the Judiciary against political influence. However, the
composition of the Judicial and Bar Council does not really insulate it against
the
political influence of the President.
So, in effect, we insulate the Council against the political influence of the
legislature, but we do not insulate it against the political influence of the
President. In fact, we make the political influence of the President prevail
because the Council is heavily composed of people appointed by the
President.
The requirement of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, which
I understand is provided in the proposal for the legislature, will have the
effect
of a check on the discretion of the President in the appointments of the
members of the Council. So, we have double insulation against political
influence.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: Can we have a few minutes?
The Committee is disposed to accept the amendment. However, I think we
would like to point out that instead of THE COMMISSION, the amendment
would say
A COMMISSION, since there apparently is a question as to what more . . .
FR. BERNAS: I would be agreeable to that. That would be the sense of my
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): How will the whole amendment now
read?
FR. BERNAS: So, the first sentence of Section 6 (2) shall now read: The
regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a
term of
four (4) years WITH THE CONSENT OF A COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Committee has accepted the
amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized to present an amendment to Section 7.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer and the honorable sponsors, Section 7 (5),
page 4, line 13, reads:
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the
practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged.
My proposed amendment constitutes a substitution on line 17 and
subsequent deletion of the next sentence which reads: The National
Assembly may repeal,
alter, or supplement the said rules with the advice and concurrence of the
Supreme Court.
Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be allowed to explain my proposal?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Commissioner has five minutes.
MS. AQUINO: The rules of practice and the rules of procedure in court
practice are very technical such that logically we confer upon the Supreme
Court the
power to promulgate such rules. Conformably with the formulation in Section
7 (5), the Committee has vested in the Supreme Court the power to
promulgate
the same rules. However, even as the Committee has vested in the Supreme
Court this power the power to initiate the rules it has, likewise, reserved
to
the National Assembly the power to repeal and to revoke.
I have the sense that when the Committee reserves to the National Assembly
the power of repealing and revoking, it gives the legislature a mantle of
superiority over the Supreme Court. I would like to propose this amendment
on line 17: Instead of the period (.) after the word privileged, we place a
comma (,) followed by the phrase WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. In other words, it will be a full 360-degree swing from
granting the power
to repeal and revoke to the National Assembly to just granting it the power to
confirm or concur.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: We would like a clarification because under the proposed
provision as it reads, the Supreme Court, in effect, has a veto power. As we
understand the Commissioners proposition, it is now the National Assembly
which will be given the veto power.
MS. AQUINO: If the intendment of the term concurrence is antecedent
requisite for its validity, yes; but I would like to rid the formulation of the
odium
of granting the National Assembly a superior power of revoking and
repealing.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, but the Supreme Court can render that power futile by
vetoing it.
MS. AQUINO: That is so, if we would retain the next sentence, but I was
proposing to delete the sentence which reads: The National Assembly may
repeal,
alter, or supplement the said rules with the advice and concurrence of the
Supreme Court.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, that amendment was similar to my
amendment, but mine would have been just to repeal that sentence. It
seems that aside
from just repealing it, the Commissioner would want to add something on
line 17.
MS. AQUINO: My concern here is this: There is apparently an overemphasis
on the independence and strength of the Judiciary, which I think is warranted
in
the principle of separation of powers. But as was correctly pointed out by a
colleague, the essence of separation of powers balances off only with the
concept of checks and balances. In other words, as we insulate one agency,
we also give it free play and expose it to the dynamics of checks and
balances
such that I will be willing to concede to the National Assemblys power of
confirming the rules as drafted by the Supreme Court.
MR. RODRIGO: So after deleting that sentence, what is the phrase that is
added after the word privileged?
MS. AQUINO: After the word privileged, place a comma (,) and insert the
phrase WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. My only
concern is to
expand the formulation of giving a possible impression which would give the
National Assembly superiority over the Supreme Court.
MR. RODRIGO: The Commissioner would not want to remove that power
completely from the National Assembly.
MS. AQUINO: At first, I had that intention, but as I have mentioned earlier, I
am conceding that power now to the National Assembly if only to allow a full
play to checks and balances.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): May we have the comments of the
Committee?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we have a suspension, to ask
Commissioner Aquino to explain to us.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The session is suspended.
It was 3:26 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): So, as approved, how does the
amendment, as amended, read?
MR. MAAMBONG: May I request Commissioner de los Reyes to rephrase the
amendment to the amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The amendment, as amended, now reads: Rules of
procedure of special courts shall BE VALID UNLESS DISAPPROVED by the
Supreme Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Regalado will reply.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I propose an amendment to the amendment to include
QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner de Castro, the
amendment is to delete the words quasi-judicial bodies, so we will have to
rule on that
first. Besides, the Gentlemans amendment is already a third degree
amendment. Can we now have the comments of the Committee?
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, considering the statement of the
Chair regarding the prohibition on third degree amendments, probably
Commissioners de
los Reyes, de Castro and I could approach the Committee and formulate the
proposed amendment at one time so that we can save time not talking here
on the
floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Let us first hear the Committee, if it
is willing to accept the concept, to begin with.
MR. ROMULO: We are willing to discuss it, Mr. Presiding Officer.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The session is suspended.
It was 3:43 p. m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:47 p.m., the session was resumed.
review
cases involving political questions under Section 1, second paragraph of the
committee report, the appeal by the state from a judgment of acquittal, the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and so forth it is
reasonable for us to conclude that it would take quite a number of years
before the Supreme Court could dispose of all past cases, assuming that it
could comply with the 24-month mandatory period to render a decision,
which I
doubt. Also, we are reducing the number of members from 15 to 11.
Justice John Catron of the United States said, and I quote:
The Constitution is a practical instrument made by practical men and suited
to the circumstances in which it was intended to operate.
Obviously, the prevailing circumstances which I have enumerated do not
justify the granting of administrative supervision to the Supreme Court at
this
time. So, let the question as to which body or office should exercise
administrative supervision over lower courts, whether it is the Supreme
Court, the
Ministry of Justice or a separate body to be created by law, be determined by
a legislative enactment or by a direct action of the people through
referendum. Let us not reject the logical and reasonable presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties. Let us not ignore the political
maturity of our people which was amply demonstrated by their actions
before, during and after the February 7 election. Let us always remember the
wise
words of Justice Catron that we should include in our Constitution provisions
which would take into account the circumstances of our times, including, if I
may use the words of Commissioner de Castro, the horrifying number of
pending cases.
I, therefore, submit, Mr. Presiding Officer, that we should allow the law to
determine where the administrative supervision of lower courts should be at
a
given time depending upon the circumstances that exist.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Thank you.
What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: The Committee cannot accept the amendment. This is one
provision the Committee is willing to die for. We believe it could set back the
himself; it
is difficult to put the matter of determining whether or not an individual is
incapacitated on the individual himself. And yet he is only 67 years old and
he continues to work till he reaches the age of 70.
In the Armed Forces, incapacitation is determined by the medical officer,
more particularly the medical officer of the V. Luna General Hospital. An
individual cannot say he is incapacitated. Hence, as amended, the whole
section shall read: The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower
courts
shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy
years or become incapacitated, AS DETERMINED BY A GOVERNMENT
PHYSICIAN to
discharge the duties of their office. The rest of the sentence remains.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. CONCEPCION: I am afraid the Committee cannot accept the proposed
amendment. As a matter of fact, and I say, fact, the actual practice has been
for the
Supreme Court to designate or create a committee of doctors to go over the
case and submit these records to the Supreme Court to examine the whole
matter
and make the recommendations.
The court has deemed it best to choose in every case the doctors who shall
probably determine the incapacitation of a member or judge to insure
impartiality.
MR. DE CASTRO: In that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, we can put AS
DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT PHYSICIAN CHOSEN BY THE SUPREME
COURT, because if we leave
it at that, nobody will determine the incapacity of that member or judge.
MR. CONCEPCION: As I said, it is determined by a committee of doctors
created by the Supreme Court. Another thing, the head of clinics is generally
engaged
in the general practice of medicine, whereas the incapacity may require an
intervention of experts in special lines which are supposed to be related to
the
incapacity in question. So that is the present practice which is more
acceptable.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is the proponent insisting on his
amendment?
MR. DE CASTRO: I do, because while I agree with the Honorable Concepcion
on his explanation, it must be stated in the Constitution who really
determines
the incapacitation of that judge.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Will the proponent then please
restate his amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: Section 10 would now read: The Members of the Supreme
Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until
they
reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated, AS DETERMINED BY
A GOVERNMENT PHYSICIAN, to discharge the duties of their office. The rest
of the
sentence remains.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): We will now put the amendment to a
vote.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand.
(Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 2 votes in favor and 31 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, my proposed amendment refers to
the same section mentioned by Commissioner de Castro. On page 5, line 5,
change
seventy to SIXTY-FIVE. I understand this is a very emotional issue. I do not
want to burden the Commission with the pros and cons of the word
seventy
or sixty-five. I think all the Members are well aware of the issues on this.
So, in the event the Committee does not accept the amendment, all I ask is
for it to at least discuss before this body in brief the pros and cons of the
issue so that we can vote thereon. I now formally move to change seventy
to
SIXTY-FIVE on page 5, line 5.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. CONCEPCION: The Committee had proposals to increase the age of
retirement rather than to decrease the same. Also, the Committee heard the
opinion of
the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a former Chief Justice, as
well as that of the Solicitor General, and considering their experience apart
from the personal experience of the one addressing the Commission now, it
felt that in general the retirement age of 70 years is a fair choice. Many of
the
present members of the Supreme Court are past the age of 65 years. One of
them is Justice Feria who is 69 years old, but he is one of the most active,
most
efficient, and most competent justices, not to speak of his integrity. There
were some, perhaps, in the past, who might have retired from the Supreme
Court
at an earlier age, like Justices Recto and Laurel. But we all know that they
had retired not because of incapacity but for some other personal reasons. In
general, the retirement of a majority of those who left the court below the
age of 65 years was due to financial considerations. They could not live
adequately and decently on the salary that they were receiving and which
the members of the court are presently receiving. I think that seventy is a
fair
choice. Of course, if we were to speak about the experience of the American
Supreme Court, a number of its justices retired at the age of 90. But these
are, of course, exceptional cases.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Committee has two more
minutes.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Suarez would like to comment.
MR. SUAREZ: Commissioner Maambong will recall that the 1935 Constitution
provided that the retirement age for justices be fixed at 70 years.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, I understand that.
MR. SUAREZ. In the 1971 Constitutional Convention, it was decided to reduce
the retirement age from 70 to 65 years on the theory that many of the
judges
altogether from its unsavory flavor as experienced during the martial law
regime.
MR. MAAMBONG: I agree with that statement, but as I mentioned earlier,
considering that this is rather an emotional issue and in order not to burden
the
Committee, I suggest that this issue be submitted to the body for a vote.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The amendment is on line 5, page 5,
which is to change seventy to SIXTY-FIVE.
As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 9 votes in favor and 24 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
May I ask for some clarification on Section 10, page 5, lines 3 to 6 because it
may need an amendment.
Does the Committee mean the security of tenure applies only when the
position exists? For example, may the legislature enact a statute declaring
an
existing judicial position vacant?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, the fault here is that the justices or judges can only be
removed by impeachment and, therefore, during good behavior they remain
in
office until the age of 70 years or are incapacitated. On whether the
legislature can abolish their position and declare it vacant, the second
paragraph of
Section 2 answers that question: No law shall be passed reorganizing the
Judiciary when it undermines security of tenure.
MS. AQUINO: But if it is explicitly stated in the record that Section 12, first
paragraph, is enforceable as a ground for impeachment, I am satisfied, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MR. CONCEPCION: It is actionable because it might be a violation.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Thank you very much.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Anterior amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUMULONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, anterior amendment to Section 11.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Sumulong is
recognized.
MR. SUMULONG: Thank you.
On page 5, Section 11, line 11, insert AND OF THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT between Court and in.
On line 12, change the word it to THEM and on line 15, after Chief
Justice, insert OF THE SUPREME COURT OR BY THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF
THE INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, AS THE CASE MAY BE.
So the first two sentences of Section 11 will read as follows: The conclusions
of the Supreme Court AND OF THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
submitted to
THEM for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation
before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the
court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice OF THE
SUPREME COURT OR BY THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, AS
THE CASE MAY BE, shall be issued an copy thereof attached to the record of
the case and served upon the parties.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we all share the concern of the
honorable Chairman of the Committee on the Executive. We also know those
alleged
practices in the Intermediate Appellate Court, however, I would make two
comments on that point.
The Intermediate Appellate Court is a statutory court, not a constitutional recreated court. If we mention here specifically the Intermediate Appellate
Court, then it becomes part of the Constitution, although the fact is the
Intermediate Appellate Court may also be abolished merely by statute later.
Second, because we appreciate and fully share the concern of Commissioner
Sumulong, we added this sentence: The same requirement shall be
observed by all
lower collegiate courts, which means that the Intermediate Appellate Court
and the Sandiganbayan, which are collegiate courts, have to follow the same
requirements that their decisions shall be reached at only after consultation
before a case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion with the
corresponding certification of the highest magistrate of that particular
collegiate body. By the way, there may be a little typographical error on line
19.
It should be The same requirements shall be observed by all lower
collegiate courts.
MR. SUMULONG: Do I understand this last sentence which will read: The
same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts will
require the
Intermediate Appellate Court, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals
and all other collegiate courts to follow the rule established in Section 11 and
that these collegiate courts are not allowed to assign the preparation of a
draft decision to one justice alone and have it concurred by the other justices
to reach a decision?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, the Intermediate Appellate Court,
the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals have to follow the same
requirements.
MR. SUMULONG: Is that the clear intent and purpose of this Section 11, Mr.
Presiding Officer?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUMULONG: I am satisfied. Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): So the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Sumulong is withdrawn?
MR. SUMULONG: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, I am satisfied with the explanation
of the Committee.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SUMULONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have another amendment on Section
12, second paragraph.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there is an anterior amendment by
Commissioner Maambong.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, members of the Committee, I am just
following up the statements of Commissioner Sumulong regarding Section
11. The
second sentence of Section 11 says:
A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a
copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the
parties.
I am not quite clarified on the word certification, but I take it to mean that
this certification contains two things: (1) that there was a consultation
and (2) that the writing of the courts opinion is assigned to a member.
Commissioner Sumulong just mentioned that with this assignment to a
member, some
parties might go to that particular member and influence him in some way,
because it is also stated that a copy thereof shall be attached to the record
of
the case and served upon the parties.
I wonder, Mr. Presiding Officer, whether this requirement of serving the
parties a copy of the certification that the writing of the courts opinion has
been assigned to a member is necessary. And I am now making a specific
motion to delete the words of the case and served upon the parties on line
16, in
line with the statement of Commissioner Sumulong that this might indicate
to the party-litigant who the member writing the courts
I so move for the deletion, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
point he is
referring to.
MR. CONCEPCION: This requirement of the certification by the Presiding
Judge has been deemed necessary precisely to forestall the practice which
the
members of the Committee have heard followed by some courts. There must
be not only a consultation but also a certification of the consultation which
must
be attached to the record of the case.
With respect to the amendment proposed by Commissioner Maambong, the
purpose of that is precisely in response to the demands of other members of
the
Committee, that unless it is attached to the records and copies served upon
the parties, the public would not know when the function has been
performed, so
we can forestall any attempt in the future for the court to say that it was not
submitted or discussed until some other time.
This is one of the things we are providing to insure that failure of judges to
comply with the provisions of the Constitution shall be actionable on the
basis of the certifications made by them particularly and specifically.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have no difficulty on that portion of
the certification, but from my understanding . . .
MR. ROMULO: For clarification, our intention is not to name the member who
will write the decision but only to specify that the writing of the courts
decision is assigned to a member of the court.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, I think this needs
clarification because when the certification says that the case is assigned to
a
member, we have to specify in the certification who the member is.
If we stop right here on line 16, which states: . . . shall be issued and a copy
thereof attached to the record of the case. . . , there is no serious
difficulty. But when we say and served upon the parties, the parties now
would know who the member assigned to write the opinion of the court is.
And it
has been stated clearly by Commissioner Sumulong that this may be
dangerous, considering that party-litigants may use influence.
MR. ROMULO: As we said, that is not the intention. However, even if we do
not serve the party with a copy of the certification, once it is attached to the
record of the case, the lawyer has a right to look at the expediente, so he will
find out anyway. I hope the Commissioner would suggest a better word. We
merely wish the certification to state that a member has been assigned to
write the courts decision. We do not wish to identify him.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, that would be best, but I am not in a position to
suggest how the Committee would reword it in such a manner that the name
of the
justice assigned to write the courts opinion would not be identified in the
certification. I leave that to the Committee.
However, I would like to restate my primary amendment to delete the words
and served upon the parties on line 17.
MR. ROMULO: The Committee cannot accept the amendment because one of
our main objectives is precisely to advise the parties with regard to the
period
because we would like it to be actionable later on.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, if the understanding is that in the
certification to be served to the parties the name of the justice assigned to
write the opinion of the court is not identified, then I withdraw my
amendment.
MR. ROMULO: That is the understanding.
MR. SUMULONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, with the explanation of Chairman
Concepcion, I am satisfied and I withdraw my amendment to the
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Maambong has
withdrawn his amendment to the amendment which is to delete the phrase
and served upon the
parties on the understanding that the name of the justice will not be
identified.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I will proceed to the last sentence which reads:
Any Member dissenting or abstaining from a decision shall state the reason
for his dissent or abstention.
We are all aware, Mr. Presiding Officer, that there are so many decisions of
the Supreme Court mentioned in the Philippine Reports and the Supreme
Court
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Can we not leave that to the
Committee on Style?
MR. CONCEPCION: Of course.
MR. SUMULONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Yes, Commissioner Sumulong is
recognized.
MR. SUMULONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I just wish to propound a question to
the Committee regarding the meaning of paragraph 2, Section 12, which
reads:
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court
shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis
therefor.
Mr. Presiding Officer, in several cases that I have handled and I think this
is true also of the other lawyers who are Members of this Commission
regarding motions for reconsideration or petitions for review, we simply
receive a resolution saying denied for lack of merit. Is that enough to
comply
with this paragraph 2, Section 12?
MR. CONCEPCION: This is precisely in response to the clamor against minute
resolutions affecting merits.
MR. SUMULONG: So, if the resolution simply says, denied for lack of merit,
that does not comply with this?
MR. CONCEPCION: It depends upon what is being resolved. If it is a motion
for extension of time, a motion for postponement or any of the routine
matters,
it need not be reasoned out.
MR. SUMULONG: I am only referring to a motion for reconsideration or a
petition for review, an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
MR. CONCEPCION: That is right. The reasons must be stated.
MR. SUMULONG: Would it not be enough just to say, denied for lack of
merit?
MR. CONCEPCION: No. The reasons must be stated.
MR. SUMULONG: That would not be sufficient because that happens several
times. We file a petition for review by certiorari which is an appeal to the
Supreme Court discussing the facts and the laws involved, but when the
resolution comes to us, it simply says, Resolution/petition denied for lack of
merit.
MR. CONCEPCION: That is it. That is not enough. It must state why.
MR. SUMULONG: That would not be enough.
MR. ROMULO: It would not be enough.
MR. CONCEPCION: The reasons are there.
MR. SUMULONG: The reasons and the facts in support of the resolution have
to be given.
MR. CONCEPCION: Not anymore, while it is necessary to state.
MR. SUMULONG: It has to be stated.
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The question has been answered.
MR. SUMULONG: I am satisfied. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Thank you very much.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, this has reference to page 5, Section 12,
and my proposed amendment is the deletion of lines 27 to 32. A similar
proposal not exactly the same, was given to the Committee on Citizenship,
Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights, but this was
not accepted.
Let me just explain the reasons why I am asking for the deletion of this
paragraph. First of all, I would like to state that, as worded, it does not
change
the existing doctrine on double jeopardy. My understanding in the adoption
of double jeopardy is that two things must be established: the first jeopardy
attached and the first jeopardy terminated. And the termination of jeopardy
is either by conviction or by acquittal. We have decisions saying that if the
acquittal is rendered by a court that exercises grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, it is not an acquittal at all, so
that pursuing the case is not pursuing a new case; it is not putting a person
in second jeopardy, but simply pursuing the same jeopardy. And the idea
being
that, while the accused has a right to a day in court, the people have also a
right to a day in court. If there is an abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction, it means that the people have not had a day in
court. The basic reason, therefore, why I ask for its deletion is that: 1) it is
not necessary; and 2) while it is not necessary, keeping it here can be very
harmful. I say it is not necessary because, as I have already explained, what
is stated here can be done even without this provision. It was done in the
case of People vs. Pablo, decided in 1980. It was also done in the case
decided
last week, the Veridiano case.
My principal objection to this is if we wave the flag saying that acquittals
may be appealed, even under this very detailed explanation, and when we
consider that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this, then we
could be subjecting an accused individual to a very serious danger of
harassment
from a prosecutor who is proud, perhaps, or who has a grudge against the
defense or from a complainant who just wants to harass an individual even if
he
has already been acquitted. So, I grant that there may be certain cases
where the Supreme Court makes a mistake in an acquittal. The harm,
however, which
will follow from waving this flag of possibility of appeal and, therefore, almost
inviting appeal from irresponsible prosecutors, could be much more than
letting a guilty person go. So, in the interest of making valid acquittals final
and in the interest of creating a situation which could invite harassment,
I would ask that lines 27-32 be dropped.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Padilla will reply.
MR. PADILLA: The legal reasons given by Commissioner Bernas would justify
this paragraph rather than its deletion, because he says that this paragraph
does
not violate the principle of double jeopardy, that there must be a start and a
termination of jeopardy, and that if it is in the same case, there is no
violation of double jeopardy. So, those very same reasons for deletion are the
good reasons for inclusion of this provision.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:33 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I reiterate my proposed amendment on
Section 13, page 6, lines 3 to 5: During their continuance in office, their
salary
shall not be decreased and place a period (.), then delete the words nor
subjected to income tax.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): May we have the reaction of the
Committee?
Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: I am not in a position to announce the decision of the Committee.
Let us wait; our Chairman is coming.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): I understand from Commissioner
Romulo that an agreement has already been reached.
Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: No. Commissioner Bernas will now propose his amendment to
the amendment. That is the parliamentary situation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: During the suspension, we came to an understanding with the
original proponent, Commissioner Rigos, that his amendment on page 6, line
4 would
read: During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be
DECREASED. But this is on the understanding that there will be a provision
in the
Constitution similar to Section 6 of Article XV, the General Provisions of the
1973 Constitution, which says:
of debate, the honorable sponsors mentioned that the Court does not
automatically lose jurisdiction. So, I would like to be clarified about the
intention
of the Committee in deleting the pertinent provisions of the 1973
Constitution. This might render unnecessary the possibility of any
amendment.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. CONCEPCION: What portion would the Commissioner consider directory?
MS. AQUINO: That was at the instance of my query in the period of debate
when I asked if this paragraph would have a mandatory effect.
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes, it is.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, it would have a mandatory effect. That is precisely why we
amended the provision on the 1973 Constitution which, in effect, said that
the
lower courts decision would be affirmed if the Supreme Court does not
decide it within the 1 8-month period.
MS. AQUINO: So, what is the enforceability of this provision?
MR. ROMULO: So, the import of this provision, together with Section 14 (1), is
to show through the various certifications required with regard to the
beginning and the end of the period that should the Supreme Court or any
other court not decide within the period prescribed, it shall constitute a
culpable violation of the Constitution, for which, of course, appropriate action
can be taken.
MS. AQUINO: And what makes it actionable according to the provision is that
the Chief Justice or the Presiding Judge, as the sponsor mentioned earlier,
will issue a certification that he has not complied with the Constitution; in
effect, this will create for him the evidence against himself.
MR. ROMULO: That is correct.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. That will obviate any
amendment.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
usually that reply brief lies there for months or for a long time without
any decision. And that is why I believe that the wording of this paragraph
should be changed because the words last pleading cover already the
reply
brief of the appellant, and the word memorandum applies in case there is
an oral argument. Usually, the court says, Well, you file; let the appellant
file a memorandum within 10 days. And then, the appellee can submit a
reply memorandum within 10 days also from receipt of the appellants
memorandum.
That was the procedure, Mr. Presiding Officer. And I think that if we want to
avoid decisions which are studied only by one justice or allowed to lie
sleeping for a long time, we should revert to the old rule of setting the case
for oral argument where all the justices will have to be present. They
should read all the briefs involved and then hear the arguments of both
sides. And after the oral arguments, they should deliberate right away while
the
facts and the law are fresh in their mind, and reach a decision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. CONCEPCION: I would want to ask for a clarification. How would the
Commissioner rephrase paragraph 2? How would he put his idea across?
MR. SUMULONG: I am proposing that on line 15, after pleading, delete the
comma (,) and then on line 16, delete memorandum and in lieu thereof
insert
AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT so that this sentence will read: A case or matter
shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the
last
pleading or AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT required by the rules of court or by the
court itself.
This will allows a case to be submitted immediately after oral argument.
MR. CONCEPCION: Does the Commissioner mean that the Court should hear
all cases on oral argument?
MR. SUMULONG: The Court should set the case for oral argument where all
the justices will be present and both sides will argue before them; and after
the
oral argument, while the facts and the law are fresh in their mind, then the
justices can deliberate and reach a decision.
MR. CONCEPCION: But still, the question is: Does the Commissioner wish to
have an oral argument in all cases so that the Court could not decide without
an
oral argument?
MR. SUMULONG: Yes, I would prefer that, Mr. Presiding Officer. There should
be an oral argument in all cases especially before the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals.
MR. CONCEPCION: Suppose the parties agreed?
MR. SUMULONG: Because under the present rules, there is delay where it
says that after filing the reply brief of the appellant the case is deemed
submitted
for decision. And usually not all the justices partake in the writing of the
decision.
MR. CONCEPCION: My first question is still unanswered. So, no case can be
decided without a previous oral argument.
MR. SUMULONG: We can allow the appellant to submit his brief then, after
that, the appellee will file his brief. And after both parties have submitted
their briefs, we should set the case for oral argument and then reach a
decision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Sumulong, the
question precisely is that every single case that is brought up to the
Supreme Court,
therefore, must be set for oral argument.
MR. SUMULONG: Yes, I prefer that because, I think, the results will be better.
If there is an oral argument, all the justices will be required to be
present. They will hear both sides. Whereas, if we say that after the filing of
the reply brief of the appellant, the case is submitted for decision, we
cannot be sure that all the justices will study the case.
MR. CONCEPCION: Suppose the parties have agreed to submit the case
without oral argument.
MR. SUMULONG: That is disadvantageous, Mr. Presiding Officer, because if
there is no oral argument, we will not be sure that all the justices will
participate, study and deliberate the case.
MR. CONCEPCION: That is why there is a certification required of the
deliberations.
MR. SUMULONG: I beg the sponsors pardon.
And another question, as the Commissioner himself has said, usually after an
oral argument, the parties are given time to submit memoranda. Does he
mean to
say that after oral argument no memorandum should be allowed and
immediately after oral argument, the case should be submitted for decision?
MR. SUMULONG: That will depend upon the court. If they believe that after
the oral argument they would need the filing of the memorandum, that can
be done.
MR. RODRIGO: Then in that case, the case should be deemed submitted for a
decision not after the oral argument, but after the filing of memoranda, if
any.
MR. SUMULONG: Yes, that is a last pleading.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What is the pleasure of
Commissioner Natividad?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Will the proponent of the amendment yield to just one
question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is Commissioner Sumulong willing to
yield to some questions?
MR. SUMULONG: Yes, with pleasure.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
I wonder if Commissioner Sumulongs stand would change especially with
regard to Section 11 which says:
The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision
en banc or in division, shall be reached in consultation before the case is
assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion of the court.
The reason for the Commissioners amendment is for the participation of all
the justices, and this section insures this participation.
MR. SUMULONG: My proposed amendment, in which an oral argument is
necessary before a case is submitted for resolution, is complementary to
Section 11 to
make sure that a case will be studied by all the justices and not only by one.
Under the present rule, after a reply brief has been filed by the appellant,
the case is considered submitted for resolution. I know of many cases where
only one or a few justices have studied the case.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I submit, Mr. Presiding Officer. I would just remind the
honorable Commissioner.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): I think the issue has been amply
discussed and everything is clear on both sides. We are ready to vote now.
Those in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Sumulong, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
The results show 6 votes in favor and 23 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I want to propose an amendment by substitution on Section
15. I propose to delete the entire section and in lieu thereof place the
following:
SECTION 15. THE JUDICIARY SHALL ENJOY FISCAL AUTONOMY.
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE JUDICIARY MAY NOT BE REDUCED BY THE
LEGISLATURE BELOW THE AMOUNT APPROPRIATED
FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND, AFTER APPROVAL, SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY
AND REGULARLY RELEASED.
I just want to clarify that the reason for this amendment is that the Judiciary
should not be exempt from the budgetary process of submitting and
justifying its budget, except that upon approval, it should be automatically
and regularly released.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: The Committee accepts. May I ask if the second and the last
sentences are joined in one?
Second, since the amendment of Commissioner Monsod will not make the
appropriations automatic, we want the Chief Justice to be able to explain to
the
legislature the needs of the Judiciary in a very dramatic way without lowering
his dignity or seemingly appearing to beg.
Third, we want to impress upon the Chief Justice and the members of the
court that they have a responsibility to answer for their performance by
appearing
before the representatives of the people.
We would prefer that the body vote on it.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Natividad is
recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Mr. Presiding Officer, will my colleague from the Opposition
yield.
MR. MAAMBONG: I yield, but on the floor I am not a member of the
Opposition; I am only an opposition outside.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I withdraw the word Opposition and in lieu thereof I use the
word Commissioner.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is it not a fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
was always invited by the Batasan, when it converted itself into a committee
of
the whole, to address that body during appropriations hearings but not on
the opening day? The same is true in the old Congress, when we converted
the
House into a committee of the whole during appropriations hearings and the
Chief Justice was then invited to address us.
I wonder if the Commissioner was a Member then of the Batasan when Chief
Justice Castro came here to discuss the Judiciarys budget.
MR. MAAMBONG: In reply to the Commissioners statement, traditionally,
that is the correct procedure being followed in the old Congress and also in
the
First Regular Batasang Pambansa. As a matter of fact, during the opening
ceremonies of both bodies, all Cabinet ministers, justices of the Supreme
Court
not only the Chief Justice were invited, together with the members of the
diplomatic corps. It is also true that upon invitation the Chief Justice
addressed the legislature when converted into a committee of the whole.
Traditionally, Cabinet ministers who were not Members of the Assembly were
not allowed to address the First Regular Batasang Pambansa. So they had to
appoint their respective parliamentary deputy ministers who were Members
of the Assembly to answer the questions during the Question Hour.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, the Batasan converted itself into a committee of the
whole, whenever a Cabinet minister who was not a Member of the Batasan
addressed
the Assembly.
So, considering that past practice, I feel that the Chief Justice may be invited
by the National Assembly. However, his addressing the body on the same
day
the President does has no precedent yet.
MR. ROMULO: The Committee wishes to explain that that is not our meaning.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I accept that, that is why I was trying to find out if the
proponent of the motion to delete the last sentence of Section 16 would
change
his stand if the Chief Justice is invited for another day.
MR. MAAMBONG: I feel very awkward about this provision. I moved for its
deletion because it is not really necessary to institutionalize this practice in
the Constitution.
At any rate, as pointed well by Commissioner Natividad, the Chief Justice can
always address the National Assembly when it is converted into a committee
of
the whole. Actually, I find no necessity for this provision.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I submit to the Commissioner.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Chair notes that the intention of
the Committee is not really to have the Chief Justice address the Assembly at
the opening of the regular session.
Is the proponent still insisting on his amendment by deletion or would he
tailor his amendment to accommodate the intention of the Committee?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Yes, because the amendment was
lost.
MR. RODRIGO: Then I will present an amendment to delete the last sentence
on lines 28 to 30.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): I think we have debated on this
enough. Let us now vote.
Those in favor of the amendment to delete the last sentence on page 6, lines
28 to 30, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 24 votes in favor and 10 against; the amendment is
approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized for a one-word
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I be allowed to have another amendment outside of that?
But, first, may I move to reconsider an approved amendment. The
amendment that was
approved earlier and which I am now seeking to reconsider is the
amendment introduced by Commissioners Maambong and de los Reyes on
line 23, page 4.
MR. MAAMBONG: With the kind indulgence of Commissioner Davide, I have
an anterior amendment which I reserved with the Floor Leader.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, Bishop Bacani and I have reserved time with
the Floor Leader and with the members of the Committee for a
reconsideration
of the vote on Section 5.
Does Commissioner Davides amendment pertain to any section anterior to
that?
MR. DAVIDE: Posterior; the proposed reconsideration will be an amendment
to paragraph 5 of Section 7.
MR. OPLE: I have the permission of Commissioner Davide to seek the floor
first on the basis of an anterior amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: I am willing to yield.
MR. OPLE: What about Commissioner Maambong?
MR. MAAMBONG: Considering that my reservation with the Floor Leader
refers to Section 1, may I go ahead with my anterior amendment?
MR. OPLE: I recognize precedence of Commissioner Maambongs
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: This proposed amendment may not be actually necessary,
if I can get some clarificatory answers from the Committee.
I am referring to Section 2, line 14 which reads: No law shall be passed
reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines security of tenure.
The way I see it this probably refers to a particular law, the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1981 (BP No. 129). From that point of reference, I
would
just like to know whether there is any form of judiciary reorganization which
does not, in some way, undermine the security of tenure. We had the
Judiciary
Act of 1943, which was amended several times before the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1981, and if I recall correctly, upon the implementation
of both
laws, there was always some form, one way or the other, of abridging the
security of tenure. So, if there is such an abridgment of security of tenure, I
find that this provision may not be tenable. I would just like to get a
clarification from the Committee.
MR. ROMULO: The Committee does not prevent a reorganization or a revamp,
but prohibits it if the only purpose is to kick out judges. That is the essence
of
this provision. Therefore, a reorganization in good faith, as in the de la Llana
case, would be acceptable. But if the main purpose is really to throw out
the judges so that we bring in a completely new set, then it is not in good
faith. So, this provision seeks to prohibit that kind of a reorganization. But
let us say that the legislature reorganizes the number of courts because in
one region it is either too many or too little, then that would seem to be a
valid reorganization.
reorganization
act is just a law, just like any other law. But if we challenge its
constitutionality, then we throw it to the Supreme Court on the basis of
Section 2. So
it seems to me that these two lines are useless. A reorganization act is a law.
The validity or constitutionality of a law can always be passed upon by the
Supreme Court under paragraph 2 of Section 3. So to me, this is
unnecessary.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): We have already had two speakers in
favor of the amendment by deletion. Just for the record, is Commissioner
Maambong
formalizing that amendment by deletion?
MR. MAAMBONG: I so move to delete the second paragraph of Section 2,
lines 14 to 15, which states: No law shall be passed reorganizing the
judiciary when
it undermines security of tenure.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The. Committee has given its views,
so the body will now vote.
Those in favor of the amendment by deletion, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 16 votes in favor and 19 against; the amendment is lost.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
At this instance, I am associating myself with Commissioner Bacani regarding
Section 4. There was a previous voting on this section. May I explain what we
would like to propose to the Committee and to the Commissioners? I think we
have the leave of the Committee. We have secured it previously for a
reopening
of the action of the Commission on this section.
Commissioner Bacani and I would like to plead with the members of the
Committee and with the body to allow the deletion of the requirement of
natural-born
citizens for the qualification of judges of lower courts, if they are otherwise
qualified. Hence, Commissioner Bacani and I seek a reconsideration of the
earlier vote on Section 4, subsection 2.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): We must first ask the Commission to
vote whether or not a reconsideration would be in order.
So, is Commissioner Ople, therefore, proposing a motion to reconsider the
decision of the body?
MR. OPLE: I move for a reconsideration of the earlier vote on Section 4,
subsection 2.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The voting on Section 4, subsection 2 is reconsidered.
Is the Commissioner now moving to delete the term natural-born on line
15?
MR. OPLE: Yes. But before I put this to a motion, may I inform the Assembly
that we have secured the prior permission of the Committee, headed by the
Chief
Justice, to make this proposal to the Commission.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: We would only like to point out that the term lower court
includes the appellate court. So, it is not just the regional trial court that will
be affected, but also the appellate court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Meaning, the Intermediate Appellate
Court?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, including the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax
Appeals.
MR. OPLE: As I said earlier, a naturalized Filipino who starts from the bottom
of the ladder knows in advance that the absolute zenith he can aspire to in
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The issue has been amply discussed.
We will now put that to a vote.
Those in favor of the amendment to delete the words natural-born on line
15, page 2, Section 4, subparagraph (2), please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 21 votes in favor and 12 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: As a consequence of the approval of that particular amendment
and considering my deep concern regarding the entry into the Judiciary, a
very
delicate position, of naturalized citizens, may I be allowed to introduce an
amendment on the first paragraph of Section 4, specifically on line 9.
Between the words Court and unless, insert the following: OR ANY
LOWER COLLEGIATE COURT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: Does Commissioner Davide mean that to become a member of
a collegiate court, one must be a natural-born Filipino citizen?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, similar to that of the Supreme court.
MR. ROMULO: This will, therefore, partially dilute the amendment we have
just approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but I would like to invite the attention of the body that
there will be more qualified natural-born Filipino citizens with the expansion
of our interpretation of natural-born Filipino citizens under the Article on
Citizenship granting those who elected Philippine citizenship under the
1935 Constitution and all those who were born before January 17, 1973 the
Court, or
any other collegiate courts which may be created later.
MR. ROMULO: The committee accepts the amendment with the observation
that in many cases the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is final.
MR. DAVIDE: Certainly, that is among the reasons why, with more vigor, we
must allow the passage of this amendment.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What is the pleasure of the
Commissioner?
MS. AQUINO: I would only like to ask the proponent some clarification.
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly.
MS. AQUINO: Apparently, Commissioner Davides proposal does not only
cover the question on Citizenship. In other words, he is putting the justices of
the
Intermediate Appellate Court in the same rank as those of the Supreme
Court, with all the qualifications enumerated in Section 4.
MR. DAVIDE: That would be the effect of the proposed amendment. But if the
Commissioner wants, we could place here somewhere the other
requirements like
age, length of service as a judge at a lower court, or length of practice of law
in the Philippines.
MS. AQUINO: I would be amenable to an amendment which would allow
naturalized citizens to be members of the lower collegiate courts, but for all
of these
requisites to likewise apply to them, we might be dumping constraints to the
possibility of being appointed to this position.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. DAVIDE: May I request a suspension of the session?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The session is suspended.
It was 6:40 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
on
lines 10 and 11, we place a period (.) after pines of the word Philippines.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Could the Gentleman just read the
whole amendment, so that the whole body can follow.
MR. DAVIDE: Section 4 (1) will read: No person shall be appointed member
of the Supreme Court OR ANY LOWER COLLEGIATE COURT unless he is a
natural-born
citizen of the Philippines. A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE at
least forty years of age, AND MUST HAVE BEEN FOR FIFTEEN YEARS OR
MORE a judge of a
lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines . . . Then
followed by the Nolledo amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Where does the suggestion of
Commissioner Monsod come in?
MR. DAVIDE: The suggestion of Commissioner Monsod is also to require
specifically that the members of any lower collegiate court be members of
the
Philippine Bar. But it is just a question of placement.
I would seek the assistance of the Committee.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am sorry, but may I ask one more
question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Yes, Commissioner Suarez is
recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: If we are going to limit the application of the rest of the
provisions to a member of the Supreme Court, that would practically render
null and
void the Nolledo amendment regarding the requirement that Justices of the
Supreme Court and all other members of the lower courts must be with
proven
integrity. That might render this academic.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Can the Commission not decide on
the concept and intention and leave the styling to the Committee on Style?
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What is the pleasure of
Commissioner Regalado?
MR. REGALADO: There was that matter about membership in the Philippine
Bar Association.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Yes.
MR. REGALADO: Under Section 4 (2), the National Assembly shall prescribe
the qualifications of judges of lower courts and this includes the Intermediate
Appellate Court, the Sandiganbayan as well as the Court of Tax Appeals.
They are required to be members of the Philippine Bar. Does that answer the
question of Commissioner Monsod?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but the main concern of Commissioner Monsod is that we
actually raise the level of lower collegiate courts. The level now is on the first
paragraph.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Davide, I think the
point of Commissioner Monsod is that he was apprehensive about the fact
that
membership in the Philippine Bar was not included in this qualification for the
Supreme Court or Intermediate Appellate Court. That is already taken care
of by the second paragraph.
MR. DAVIDE: If the interpretation of the second paragraph insofar as
membership of the Philippine Bar is concerned would be that it would also
apply to the
members of the lower collegiate courts, I think that would be enough.
MR. ROMULO: The Committee believes so.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is the Gentleman satisfied?
MR. DAVIDE: I am already satisfied.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Could the Gentleman restate his
amendment then for the benefit of the Members of the Commission so that
those who
would want to speak against it may do so.
MR. DAVIDE: Section 4 (1), as amended, would now read as follows: No
person shall be appointed member of the Supreme Court OR ANY LOWER
COLLEGIATE COURT
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A MEMBER OF THE
SUPREME COURT MUST BE at least forty years of age, and MUST HAVE BEEN
for fifteen
years or more a judge or a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in
the Philippines.
there was a different answer. So, just for the sake of clarity, may I just
propose the same question. For purposes of passing judgment on the
constitutionality not application or operation of presidential decrees,
what kind of vote is needed?
MR. CONCEPCION: That required to declare a law on constitutionality.
FR. BERNAS: Paragraph 2?
MR. CONCEPCION: That is right.
FR. BERNAS: How about proclamation?
MR. CONCEPCION: All of those.
FR. BERNAS: All of those proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances,
etc. If it is a question of constitutionality, it is paragraph 2.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is the Gentleman clarified?
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I just want a reclarification of this
matter on presidential decrees because this morning during my
interpellation, it
was very clear from the answer of the Committee members that presidential
decrees do not have the stature or the category of a statute or a law passed
by a
lawmaking body. In view of the answer of the honorable Chairman, is it now
clarified that presidential decrees are, after all, of the same stature and
category as law, considering that in the consideration of the constitutionality
or unconstitutionality thereof, what will apply now would be paragraph 2 of
the section referred to by Commissioner Bernas?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Could the Committee please answer?
MR. CONCEPCION: Is the Gentleman asking a question?
MR. MAAMBONG: This morning we had an extensive discussion as to the
exact categorization of a presidential decree. From the answers of the
Committee
members, it was clear that presidential decrees do not have the same
category as laws passed by the lawmaking body. I took that to mean that
presidential
decrees are lower in category than laws properly so-called or what are known
as statutes.
Suppose this happens, what is the effect of the decision, as in many cases,
such as Philippine Banking Corp. vs. Louie Sy and Elcano vs. Gil. May I ask
the
Committee if this constitutes a legal precedent?
MR. ROMULO: Is the Gentleman asking for the effect of a decision rendered
by a division which would change the doctrine or principle of law previously
laid
down by the Supreme Court?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, in violation to this doctrine laid down here.
MR. ROMULO: Insofar as the Committee is concerned, if a decision changes a
doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court en banc or in
division, it can be modified or reversed only by the court sitting en banc and,
therefore, such a decision would be invalid.
MR. NATIVIDAD: If the understanding is that the decision will be invalid, I
would not offer an amendment.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Thank you.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote on Second Reading on Committee Report No.
18, as amended, I would like to call attention to the fact that there are two
blanks
on page 6, lines 5 and 7, which read:
. . . until the National Assembly shall provide otherwise, the Chief Justice
shall receive an annual salary of ___________ and each Associate Justice
____________ pesos.
Is the Committee ready to specify the amount?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, we are just waiting for the Executive Committee to decide
how much to give to the President because we would not want to
recommend
salaries of Supreme Court Justices more than that of the President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Chair, in its capacity as
Chairman of the Steering Committee, inquired from the Chairman of the
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF C.R. NO. 18 ON SECOND READING
(Article on the Judiciary)
MR. RAMA: I move for a vote on Second Reading on the Article on the
Judiciary with the understanding that Section 13, which has yet to be filled
up, will
not be included in the voting.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Section 13, on the salaries of
Justices?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): As many as are in favor of the Article
on the Judiciary, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised
their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his/her
hand.)
The results show 34 votes in favor and none against.
Committee Report No. 18 on the Article on the Judiciary, as amended, is
approved on Second Reading. (Applause).
Thank you very much. Please do not leave; it is only 7:24 and the Floor
Leader will file a motion to call on Commissioner Vicente B. Foz to sponsor
the
Article on the Constitutional Commissions. We suggest that we get through
with the sponsorship of the Article on the Constitutional Commissions and
continue the interpellations tomorrow.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 468
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we consider Committee Report
No. 19 on Proposed Resolution No. 468, as reported out by the Committee on
Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 468 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of the
proposed resolution without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole
text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 468, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THE COMMON
PROVISIONS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND THE PROVISIONS
ON THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION.
{The following is the whole text of the proposed resolution per C.R. No. 19.)
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 19
The Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies to which were
referred: Proposed Resolution No. 51, introduced by Hon. Serafin Guingona,
entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION ARTICLES ON
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD AND
ENHANCE THEIR INDEPENDENCE.
Proposed Resolution No. 54, introduced by Hon. Hilario Davide, Jr., entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION
REQUIRING ELECTIVE OFFICIALS TO SERVE THE FULL TERM OF OFFICE FOR
WHICH THEY WERE ELECTED AND
PROHIBITING THEM TO SEEK IMMEDIATE REELECTION FOR SAID OFFICE OR
TO BE APPOINTED TO ANY OTHER OFFICE DURING SUCH TERM AND WITHIN
TWO YEARS FOLLOWING THE
EXPIRATION THEREOF, AND, FURTHER, PROHIBITING WITHIN THE SAME
PERIOD THE SPOUSE AND/OR RELATIVES BY CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY
WITHIN THE THIRD CIVIL DEGREE
OF SUCH ELECTIVE OFFICIAL TO SEEK ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE TO BE
VACATED BY THE LATTER OR TO BE APPOINTED IN ANY MANNER TO ANY
OFFICE EXCEPT TO AN OFFICE
Proposed Resolution No. 240, introduced by Hon. Hilario Davide, Jr., entitled:
A RESOLUTION TO ENSURE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRONG CIVIL SERVICE
BY CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATING THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TO
UNDERTAKE REFORMS IN VARIOUS
AREAS OF CONCERNS AND INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A
PROVISION GRANTING BROADER POWERS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION.
Proposed Resolution No. 281, introduced by Hon. Hilario Davide, Jr., entitled:
A RESOLUTION FIXING THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION SHALL DECIDE CASES BROUGHT BEFORE IT AND PROVIDING
FOR APPEALS THEREFROM TO THE
SUPREME COURT.
Proposed Resolution No. 356, introduced by Hon. Vicente Foz, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HIGHER SALARIES FOR THE CHAIRMEN AND
MEMBERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND PROHIBITING THE
DECREASE OR INCREASE THEREOF.
Proposed Resolution No. 357, introduced by Hon. Vicente Foz, entitled:
RESOLUTION FIXING THE TEMPORARY OR ACTING AND PERMANENT
APPOINTMENTS OF A CHAIRMAN OR MEMBER OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSION TO AN AGGREGATE OF NOT MORE
THAN SEVEN YEARS,
has considered said resolutions and has the honor to report them back to the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommendation that Proposed
Resolution No. 468 prepared by the Committee, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THE COMMON
PROVISIONS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND THE PROVISIONS
ON THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION,
be approved in substitution for Proposed Resolution Nos. 51, 54, 108, 117,
135, 139, 238, 240, 281, 356 and 357, with the Committee on Constitutional
Commissions and Agencies and Hon. Guingona, Davide, Jr., Rosario Braid,
Suarez and Tadeo as authors thereof.
(Sgd.) Vicente B. Foz
Chairman
Committee on Constitutional
Commissions and Agencies
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 468
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS.
Be it resolved by the Constitutional Commission in session assembled, To
incorporate in the Constitution the following provisions:
ARTICLE XII
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
A. Common Provisions
SECTION 1. The Constitutional Commissions shall be the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.
SECTION 2. Until otherwise provided by law, the Chairman and each of the
Commissioners shall receive an annual salary of one hundred twenty
thousand pesos
and one hundred ten thousand pesos, respectively, which shall not be
decreased or increased during their tenure.
SECTION 3. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his
tenure, engage in the practice of any profession or in the management of
any
business, or be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract
with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of
its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including a governmentowned or controlled corporation or any of its subsidiaries.
SECTION 4. The Commissions shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for
the Commissions once approved shall be automatically released.
SECTION 5. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its
Members any case brought before it within sixty days from the date of its
submission
for resolution. Unless otherwise provided by law, any decision, order or ruling
of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by
the
aggrieved party thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. However, final
shall
be provided by law, and exercise all powers and functions inherent in and
incidental to human resources management, to promote morale, efficiency,
and
integrity in the Civil Service. It shall submit to the President and the Congress
an annual report on its personnel programs, and perform such other
functions as may be provided by law.
SECTION 4. Unless otherwise provided by law, no elective official shall be
eligible for appointment or designation in a temporary or acting capacity to
any
public office or position during his term.
SECTION 5. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year
after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government, or any
government-owned or controlled corporation or in any of its subsidiaries
SECTION 6. No officer of the Armed Forces in the active service shall, at any
time, be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity to a
civilian position in the Government.
SECTION 7. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive
additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law nor
accept without the consent of the Congress any emolument or official title of
any kind from any foreign government.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Foz is recognized to
sponsor the proposed resolution.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER FOZ
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
The Committee intends to file three separate reports, and we have, so far,
filed two reports on separate provisions with the concurrence of our
committee.
The first report is Committee Report No. 19, embodying Proposed Resolution
No. 468, which has to do with the common provisions on the three
constitutional
commissions; namely, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on
Elections and the Commission on Audit. The second resolution is Proposed
Resolution
No. 469 under Committee Report No. 20. This has to do with the provisions
on the Commission on Audit. Earlier, we have instructed our committee
secretary
to file the committee report on a proposed resolution on the Commission on
Elections. At the outset, we would like to take up with the body the common
provision affecting the three constitutional commissions. We have introduced
some basic changes which we believe will make for reforms in the
functioning
of the three constitutional commissions.
The first one is fiscal autonomy. Under this concept of fiscal autonomy,
appropriations once approved shall be automatically and regularly released
to the
respective commissions. We will recall that a similar provision has just been
approved in the Article on the Judiciary. We thought that if fiscal autonomy
should be provided for the Judiciary as a means of insuring its independence,
then fiscal autonomy should also be granted to the constitutional
commissions
in order for the constitutional bodies to perform effectively their
constitutional missions. We have provided in the common provisions certain
factors
which we think will help insure the independence of the commissions. One of
them is, of course, the fixed term of office without reappointment. The
second
factor is the staggered term, not only to insure continuity of the functioning
of the commissions but also as a measure to minimize the opportunity of a
President to appoint all members during his term of office. Another factor is
that the salaries of the members of the three commissions cannot be
decreased
nor increased during the term of office. The fourth again, this is a take-off
from the provisions on the Judiciary is that appointments need no
confirmation. We have fixed the salaries of the members of the commissions
and the minimum, as stated in our copies of the proposed resolution, is
P120,000
for the chairman and P110,000 for the other members of the commissions.
But personally, I think this amount should be increased in consonance with
the
increase being contemplated by the other committees for the President and
the Vice-President, as well as for the members of the Supreme Court.
Also, in the common provisions we have provided a common period for the
commissions to decide cases and a common provision for appeals to the
Supreme
Court. In the case of the provision on the Civil Service Commission, we have
re enshrined the merit system and also the principle of political neutrality
and the provision for the security of tenure of employees. These three
concepts or principles the merit system, political neutrality, and security
of
tenure we believe, constitute the tripod of our civil service system.
In the case of the Civil Service Commission, we have tried to emphasize its
status as the central personnel agency of the government, with all powers
and
functions inherent in and incidental to human resources management.
One provision concerning the civil service which we have embodied in our
draft but which is not found in the present Constitution is a provision against
the appointment of members of the armed forces in the active service to
civilian positions in government.
I guess that is all we can say about the common provisions as well as the
provisions on the Civil Service Commission.
We intend to call on Commissioner Jamir to give us some features of the
provisions on the Commission on Audit, but I guess he has left. So, I am now
open
to interpellations.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Foz, as you have
suggested earlier, we are going to take one constitutional commission at a
time, so we
have scheduled the sponsorship of the common pro- visions and the Civil
Service Commission. So, are we through with the sponsorship of the Civil
Service
Commission?
MR. FOZ: We are through with the sponsorship, Mr. Presiding Officer, and we
are ready to answer any question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Nobody has registered to interpellate. So, I move for the
adjournment of the session until tomorrow at nine thirty in the morning.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The session is adjourned until
tomorrow at nine thirty in the morning for interpellations on the proposed
article on
the Civil Service Commission.
It was 7:36 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 30
Tuesday, July 15, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:33 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Minda Luz M. Quesada.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
MS. QUESADA.: Before we say our regular prayer, may we all bow down our
heads for a one-minute meditation for the eternal repose of the father of the
Honorable Rene Sarmiento who passed away last night.
PRAYER
Our most gracious God Almighty, as we start another session today, help us
to remember the bereaved, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, the landless,
the
dispossessed and all those suffering from all forms of deprivation. We pray, O
Lord, for them even as we pray for mercy when we gloss over the sad
realities of existence among many of our poor, deprived and oppressed
people.
In their cries for food and shelter, we can hear, in the silent corners of our
conscience, the appeal they make on us not only to pray, but to act, not
only to work, but to struggle.
Our Heavenly Father, we who are so privileged as to have been chosen to
draft the new fundamental law of the land, touch our hearts and minds that
when we
make vital decisions, we shall always keep the ideals, aspirations and
interests of the majority poor and our country as our guiding principles.
Enlighten us as we struggle, as we now decide whether to give the people
with less in life, more in our fundamental law or on the issue of opening our
boundaries limitless to foreigners even to the detriment of our national
identity and sovereignty.
Warm our hearts as to radiate goodness, and strengthen us, O Lord, that we
remain physically and mentally healthy as we work hard to complete the
enormous
task given us.
All these we ask through Jesus Christ, the Great Physician, Teacher, Worker,
Brother, Advocate and Redeemer. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Aquino
Present *
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present *
Ople
Present *
Bengzon
Present *
Padilla
Present *
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present
Bernas
Present
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Present
Brocka
Present *
Reyes de los
Present *
Calderon
Absent
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Present *
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Foz
Present
Suarez
Present
Garcia
Present *
Sumulong
Present
Gascon
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Guingona
Present *
Tan
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Letter from Foundation for Active Christian Evangelization and Services, Inc.,
signed by Mr. Silvestre J. Acejas, submitting proposals on citizenship
training, moral character development, and nonformal education, among
others.
(Communication No. 201 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines signed by Messrs.
Jeremias U. Montemayor, Ernesto F. Herrera, and Democrito T. Mendoza
submitting
the first part of its Position Paper on the Draft of the Philippine Constitution.
(Communication, No. 202 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report No. 25 on Proposed Resolution No. 511, prepared by the
Committee on Local Governments, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS;
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 15,
17, 138, 176, 178, 247, 394, 409 and 414.
Sponsored by Hon. Nolledo, Calderon, Tingson, Rosales, Alonto, de Castro,
Bennagen, Rigos, Regalado, Jamir and Ople.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 26 on Proposed Resolution No. 517, prepared by the
Committee on the Executive, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 9, 55,
56, 59, 107, 118, 124, 128, 151, 152, 156, 158, 183, 197, 198, 234, 255,
257,
352, and 433.
By the way, the provision in the 1973 Constitution together with the proposal
of the UP Law Center, and the amendments thereto proposed by the
Commission
on Audit, were also considered by the Committee.
Under this proposal, we reduced the age qualification of the Commissioners
from 40 to 35 years of age, because the Committee feels that 35 is the ripe
age
for members of the Commission to carry on their tasks.
We will recall that in the 1973 Constitution, the members of the COA are
required to be certified public accountants or members of the Philippine Bar.
With
respect to the certified public accountants, the Committee has added the
qualification that they must have auditing experience, because there was no
such
qualification in the 1973 Constitution and we feel that this is a very essential
qualification for membership in the Commission on Audit.
In order to avoid the possibility, such as what exists at present, of having all
the commissioners of the Commission on Audit picked from one profession,
say, from the law profession or from the profession of certified public
accountants, the Committee proposal provides that at no time should all the
members
of the Commission belong to one profession. Therefore, at one time, the
Commission may either consist of one lawyer, two CPAs, or one CPA and two
lawyers,
in order that they would compose a well-rounded team of auditors.
We also propose that no commissioner shall be appointed on a temporary
basis, whether acting or by designation, because we want to avoid the
possibility of
a commissioner being extended a designation and then afterwards given a
permanent appointment, thereby exceeding his seven-year tenure.
With respect to the powers and duties of the Commission on Audit, its legal
history shows that as early as the military government in the Philippines,
there was already the Office of the Auditor created by an executive order of
President McKinley. Following that order, the War Department issued an
executive order on May 8, 1899, defining the duties of the Auditor. That duty
has been progressively expanded from time to time, first, by Act No. 90 of
the US-Philippine Commission, then by Act No. 1792 of the same
Commission, after which came the Jones Law on August 29, 1916. But the
Jones Law confined
the effect of the decision of the Auditor to the executive branches of the
government only. However, that limitation was later on taken away by the
Philippine Legislature in Act No. 3066 in 1933 so that the decisions of the
Auditor became effective to all the three branches of the government
subject,
of course, to the right of appeal.
When the 1935 Constitution was enacted, the auditing office was
constitutionalized because of the increasing necessity of empowering the
auditing office to
withstand political pressure. Finding a single Auditor to be quite insufficient
to withstand political pressure, the 1973 Constitution established the
Commission consisting of three members a chairman and two
commissioners.
The powers of the COA under the present proposals practically remain the
same, except in the inclusion under the aegis of the COA of the subsidiaries
of
government-owned or controlled corporations and the power to audit
nongovernmental entities.
Under the proposal on audit, constitutional bodies with fiscal autonomy,
autonomous educational institutions and government-owned and controlled
corporations, including their subsidiaries, are subject to post- audit. Also
nongovernmental enterprises are subject to postaudit, if they receive any
subsidy or equity from the government, either directly or indirectly, and the
right to audit them is one of the conditions stipulated in the grant of
subsidy or equity.
Under the Committees proposal, the power of the COA to define the scope of
its audit is made exclusive in order to avoid any conflict. The power of the
COA to promulgate rules and regulations has been extended by the
Committee to include disallowance of irregular, unnecessary expenses and
uses of
government funds.
That concludes our presentation of the proposal on the Commission on Audit.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Commissioner Jamir.
MR. RAMA.: Is the sponsor ready for interpellations?
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I suggest that the interpellations should be
limited, first, to the provisions on civil service, including the common
provisions
for all the constitutional commissions; second, to the provisions concerning
the Commission on Audit.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify the situation, yesterday what we had was the
sponsorship speech on Committee Report No. 19, regarding the common
provisions
and the Civil Service Commission. So, correct me if the interpellations should
be made first on this particular report.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 468
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions)
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA.: Madam President, I move that we continue the consideration of
Resolution No. 468. We are still in the period of debate.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA.: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized
to interpellate.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to ask a couple of questions on the report of the Committee on
the Civil Service. On page 2, number 2, that is a continuation of Section 3,
does the word subsidiaries include privately-formed corporations?
MR. FOZ: Before we proceed, may I request Commissioner Nolledo to use the
amended version of Resolution No. 468.
MR. NOLLEDO: Can I be furnished a copy please?
MR. FOZ: Madam President, the copies of the amended version were
distributed yesterday.
MR. NOLLEDO: I am now getting a copy, Madam President.
The word subsidiaries appears on line 16.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Nolledo please refer to the page. Let us
first ask the basics.
Commissioner
Nolledo.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
When we were discussing this in the Committee, I did not use the word
preferably. We were considering public administration then. but certainly
I did
not use the word preferably. I am sorry, I cannot explain it.
MR. NOLLEDO: That must have been a typographical error, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, may I request that Commissioner Rigos answer
the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, it was I who suggested the phrase preferably
with proven capacity for public administration. I think the suggestion of
Commissioner Nolledo is a good one, and which the Committee would
entertain during the period of amendments.
MR. NOLLEDO: The question sequent to that is, how does the Gentleman
determine proven capacity?
REV. RIGOS: That will be the problem of the appointing power.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
Madam President, I would like to ask one question on Section 6, page 3, lines
13 to 16 which says:
No officer of the Armed Forces in the active service shall, at any time, be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity to a civilian
position in the government.
If we equate this with other provisions, we cannot prevent the President from
appointing the officer to a double position not necessarily in a temporary
capacity, if the law allows it because the Constitution does not prohibit
double position, it only prohibits double compensation. So with the term
temporary or acting capacity, the purpose behind this provision may be
negated, if there is a law allowing a member of the Armed Forces to hold,
concurrently, a civilian position. So, why does the Committee not say cannot be designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the government
MR. DE CASTRO. Would the sponsor consider suggestions when the time
comes, or to have this portion for salaries amended?
MR. FOZ. Would the Gentleman propose an increase a further increase in the
salaries of commissioners?
MR. DE CASTRO. I do not know whether it would be a further increase or
decrease, but when the time comes would the sponsor consider?
MR. FOZ. As long as it would increase salaries, I think the Committee would
be amenable.
MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you.
Section 3, page 1, lines 9, 10, and 11 says: No member of a Constitutional
Commission shall, during his tenure, engage in the practice of any profession
.
. .
Is teaching considered the practice of a profession? I am asking this because
I would like to put on record my perceptions on this, which I failed to do
during our committee hearings. Is teaching, for example, the teaching of law,
a practice of a profession?
MR. FOZ: We did not reach any decision on this matter. There were views to
the effect that teaching should be considered as practice of a profession, but
there were opposite views, and so, on the suggestion of some members, we
dropped the subject on that point.
MR. DE CASTRO: During the discussions, a certain jurisprudent I do not
know who brought it up was cited as stating that teaching is not a practice
of a
profession. I said there is no better practice of a profession than teaching. If
you teach, you study, you research and you teach, so you are practicing
your profession.
When the time comes, will the sponsor be amenable to certain amendments
on this matter?
MR. FOZ: The Gentleman would specify that teaching is not practicing?
MR. DE CASTRO: To my perception, yes. Would the sponsor, at an appropriate
time, accept certain amendments on this?
MR. FOZ: We will consider, but we cannot promise.
MR. DE CASTRO: Section 4, line 17, page 1, says: The Commissions shall
enjoy fiscal autonomy. What does the Committee mean by fiscal
autonomy here?
MR. FOZ: The term is explained by the second sentence of the provision
which states, and I quote: Appropriations for the Commissions once
approved shall
be automatically released.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, fiscal autonomy only refers to automatic releases? Do
I get it that way?
MR. FOZ: As presently worded, that seems to be the intention.
MR. DE CASTRO: When we say a Commission has fiscal autonomy, is it just
the automatic release of its appropriations?
MR. FOZ: We know that fiscal autonomy as a term would encompass a
broader field, but I think it was the feeling of the Committee that it should be
narrowed down to automatic release of funds once appropriated and
approved by the legislature.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
On page 2, Section 2 (2), lines 31 to 32 says: In no case shall any member
be appointed in a temporary or acting capacity. Does the word member
here
include the Chairman?
MR. FOZ: The word member is inclusive of the Chairman.
MR. DE CASTRO: Does it include the Chairman and all the members?
MR. FOZ: It includes the Chairman because member is a generic term.
MR. DE CASTRO: I noticed that we have been using the word Chairman in
Section 2 (1) the Chairman and two Commissioners but in the last
sentence of
Section 2 (2) the word member is used that is why I am asking whether
this includes the Chairman and all the commissioners thereof.
MR. FOZ: Member would include the Chairman.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President
MR. REGALADO: That was the view of Justice Barredo in the Aratuc case while
he was the ponente, but I do not have the citations at hand. In subsequent
decisions wherein Chief Justice Teehankee concurred, he believed that the
mode of review on certiorari under Rule XLV is to be understood as including
acts
of the Constitutional Commissions, without jurisdiction or acting in excess of
jurisdiction.
FR. BERNAS: This seems to me the same thing. If it is without jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction, there is grave abuse of discretion.
MR. REGALADO: No, Commissioner. Grave abuse of discretion may be
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, if it was done in a capricious or whimsical
manner.
But excess of jurisdiction is a little different, meaning, that the Supreme
Court had jurisdiction but it overstepped the bounds of jurisdiction in the
exercise thereof. That is what Justice Teehankee also pointed out. Grave
abuse of discretion, I agree, results in lack of jurisdiction, but excess of
jurisdiction presupposes that the Court, while with jurisdiction, just
overstepped the permissible bounds in the exercise thereof.
FR. BERNAS: So, for purposes of the record now, what is the intention of the
Committee? What are the grounds for certiorari?
MR. REGALADO: The Committee which refers specifically to a technical term
of review by certiorari would be relying on the provisions of Rule XLV of the
Rules of Court that laid down the three grounds.
FR. BERNAS: My next question is on the Civil Service Commission Section
1 (2) on page 2. This, to some extent, has already been brought up by
Commissioner Nolledo. And I also notice that the old phrase policydetermining, primarily confidential and highly technical has been
eliminated. Does
this mean that such classification no longer exists? It seems to me that even
within the classifications of career and noncareer service, we can still have
subclassifications of highly technical, policy-determining and primarily
confidential appointments which are the bases for the distinction between
competitive and noncompetitive appointments. In other words, the way I
understand the old law, appointments to the civil service were always
according to
merit and fitness. But merit and fitness were determined in some cases by
competitive examination. In the cases of policy-determining, primarily
confidential and highly technical positions, merit and fitness are not
determined by competitive examination.
thinking and I hope I got him correctly that probably this should apply
more to the COMELEC. I recall of course, this has been denied that
former
Commissioner Felipe, now Chairman of the COMELEC, was supposed to have
been appointed, according to the newspapers, on account of the fact that he
was with
the opposition. But, of course, that has been denied by Chairman Felipe.
In the case, for example, of the other members of the Commission on
Elections, if we have to talk about former Dean Bacungan, he had no political
party
whatsoever. He was appointed because of his competency, his knowledge of
the law, and so on. But I am toying with this idea, and I am asking the
Committee
if we could probably talk about it and decide whether we are going to push
Proposed Resolution No. 460 through, which provides that, in the COMELEC
at
least, there should be appointed from a list of competent persons those
recommended by the opposition parties.
How does the Commission feel about this?
MR. FOZ: The Committee will be ready to discuss it at the proper time.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
I will go to another point because I have been given only very few minutes.
I am worried about Section 5, page 3, lines 9 to 12 which says:
No candidate who has lost in an election shall, within one year after such
election, be appointed to any office in the government, or any governmentowned
or controlled corporation or in any of its subsidiaries.
It is an all-embracing prohibition. I have been going over the books on
constitutional law, including the book of Father Bernas, and I cannot seem to
find
any justification for this provision. I was going over our present Constitution
and may I refer the Committee to Article V, Section 3 which says:
It shall be the duty of every citizen to engage in gainful work to assure
himself and his family a life worthy of human dignity.
Here is a man who tries to serve the public by presenting himself as a
candidate. He may have all the qualifications in the world but he happens to
be a
very bad politician and he lost in the elections. And because of that we
punish him. We do not give him a job even though he is qualified, and so, he
is
now a lame duck because he cannot find gainful employment. What is he
supposed to do?
If somebody could please give me the rationale for this provision, perhaps we
could understand this better. Is there any particular reason why we are
retaining this provision from the 1973 Constitution?
MR. FOZ: Yes, the Commissioner is right that this is just a reenactment of an
existing provision in the 1973 Constitution, with the difference that in our
proposed provision now there is the addition of the phrase or in any of its
subsidiaries, referring to government-owned or controlled corporations.
MR. MAAMBONG: This makes the prohibition worse, because it now covers
any of its subsidiaries.
MR. FOZ: As explained by Commissioner Bernas in his book on the 1973
Constitution, this provision attacks the evil practice of rewarding political
lame
ducks with appointments in government positions. That is the statement of
Father Bernas. And we subscribe to the proposition that the practice of
appointing lame ducks is an evil political practice.
MR. MAAMBONG: I regret that I have not read that portion of the book of
Father Bernas, the big one, the big book . . .
MR. FOZ.: It is the green book.
MR. MAAMBONG: It is the green book which is rather expensive. I was
reading actually the book of the wife of former Chief Justice Fernando and
other books.
But even with that explanation, I still could not get it, but perhaps we can
talk about it when it comes to that particular provision so that we will not
delay the discussions.
We have another point here regarding this statement made yesterday by the
proponent on the tripod of the civil service system when he said that we
have the
merit system, the principle of neutrality and security of tenure. I can
understand both the merit system and the security of tenure, but I do not
understand neutrality. What is this? Does it have something to do with the US
bases or something?
MR. FOZ: I know that the Commissioner is just being funny about this, but I
know he is familiar with the principle of political neutrality in the civil
service.
MR. MAAMBONG: I really am not, I am sorry.
MR. FOZ: It means that the professional body of men and women who are in
the public service must not involve themselves at least not overly involve
themselves in political activities because the purpose of the civil service is
efficiency in the delivery of services to its clients, which refers to the
people at large. The belief is that, if members of the civil service engage in
partisan political activity, they may be distracted from their original and
essential goal or objective of performing their jobs in the public service
efficiently. That is the main idea.
MR. MAAMBONG: I understand it now. Just one point on that Section 5,
Madam President. In the 1973 Constitution as amended in 1984, elective
officials can
hold other positions in government under two instances: One, if he is a
Cabinet member, and, two, if it is so provided by law. This provision has now
been
deleted in the present configuration of the proposed provision. I would like to
know whether or not with the deletion of that provision in the
Constitution, elective officials can already hold other positions in government
considering that the original provision was a prohibitory provision with an
exception.
What is the position of the Committee on that now?
MR. FOZ: Is the Gentleman referring to Section 4?
MR. MAAMBONG: I am referring to Section 5, and this section was lifted from
the 1973 Constitution, but as that Constitution was amended in 1984, there
was
a general prohibition against elective officials holding other offices. However,
there were two exceptions: he can hold on to another office as a member of
the Cabinet, or as provided for by law.
I want to know whether or not that prohibition still applies because it was
deleted from this proposal.
MR. FOZ: First of all, Madam President, I think the Gentleman is referring to
Section 4, page 3, starting on line 5. It is not Section 5 but Section 4.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, that prohibition before is now covered by
Section 4.
for
resolution?
MR. FOZ: I think Commissioner Davide is referring to Section 5.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. FOZ: This is on line 20, page 1, of our amended draft which reads:
Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case
brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
resolution.
The question of the Commissioner is how to determine the date of
submission for resolution.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. Would it not be best to apply the rule just
approved by the Commission in the matter relating to the Judiciary?
MR. FOZ: May I know the rule, Madam President?
MR. DAVIDE: For instance, we can state here that a case or matter is deemed
submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the
Commission itself.
MR. FOZ: That proposal would advance the date from which to compute the
period.
MR. DAVIDE: When is the matter deemed submitted for decision?
MR. FOZ: Of course, by saying that from the date of the last pleading . . .
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, almost similar to the approved section of the Article on the
Judiciary.
MR. FOZ: But after the date of the last pleading, there would still be some
proceedings, for instance, for oral arguments.
MR. DAVIDE: That is why we indicate here upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or
by the
Commission itself, because we authorize a commission to promulgate its
own rules.
MR. FOZ: Would that not put the commission in great difficulty?
MR. DAVIDE: It would not because the period of 60 days computed from the
date of submission would be sufficient.
The idea here is only to provide a rule requiring the Commission to decide a
particular matter or a case within a definite period, so that it will not
actually put any matter subject to its whims and caprices.
On another matter, Section 5, lines 27 and 28, states that the decisions of
the Commission on Elections on municipal and barangay officials shall be
final,
inappealable and executory as recommended. Would it cover all kinds of
issues affecting municipal and barangay officials or would it refer only to
contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of such officials?
MR. FOZ: This refers only to electoral contests.
MR. DAVIDE: So, at the appropriate time, is the sponsor willing to accept an
amendment specifying the area relating to municipal and barangay official?
MR. FOZ: There was really an oversight here, and we are willing to entertain
an amendment to clarify this.
MR. DAVIDE: I will bring the sponsors attention to page 2, on the Civil
Service Commission proper, more particularly on the prohibitions against
partisan
political activity. The present provision of the 1973 Constitution provides
further: or take part in any election except to vote. I notice, however, that
in this draft, that particular clause has been deleted. May we know the
philosophy for its deletion.
MR. FOZ: . The last clause which states: or take part in any election except
to vote was deleted to remove any confusion or ambiguity of words in the
implementation of this provision.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the deletion not amount to a denial of the right to vote,
because voting is a partisan political activity?
MR. FOZ: No, we are not saying that public officials and employees are
barred from voting.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. To be very safe about it, would the sponsor not grant the
need for the restatement or restoration of the phrase or take part in any
election except to vote?
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President. Just one final question which has to
do with Section 1 (4) on page 2, line 28, which states:
No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly,
in any partisan political activity.
What may be denominated as nonpartisan political activity which
presumably is not covered by this prohibition? Will belonging to NAMFREL, for
example, be
an exception to this prohibition?
MR. FOZ: Since NAMFREL is nonpartisan in character, it is not supposed to
side with any political party for political causes. So, engagement in NAMFREL
activities is not covered by the prohibition, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
But with respect to this, I think we have noted controversies concerning the
nonpartisan character of the NAMFREL, an impression which has hardly been
mitigated by the appointment following the elections of some leaders of
NAMFREL to some Cabinet positions in the government of President Aquino. I
am not
raising this as a valid conclusion to show that the NAMFREL is not
nonpartisan, but we can have in the future controversies concerning this
presumption of
nonpartisanship of the NAMFREL. The Committee, however, is saying that as
part of their intent this prohibition on partisan political activity will not
extend to government employees who will work for the NAMFREL in the
coming elections. And I suppose the Committee has already ratified the fact
that the
NAMFREL is indeed nonpartisan.
MR. FOZ: We never took it up in the Committee. What I said was a personal
statement. But in that connection, I think NAMFREL, as organized, is really
nonpartisan. But if some government employees or officers join in its
activities and engage in some partisan activities, then the blame should not
be laid
at the door of NAMFREL as an institution or organization, but on the
particular government officers or employees who did engage in partisan
activities.
MR. OPLE: I can accept that. I have nothing against the NAMFREL because we
worked together very well in the Province of Bulacan in the previous
elections.
What I am trying to point out, Madam President, is that in many localities in
the country, government employees who would like to seek cover for
partisan
activity would be strongly tempted to apply to the NAMFREL for volunteer
work so that under the cover of a noble and idealistic organization, they will
proceed to take sides in the local elections. And so, I just want to input these
into the Committee on perceptions of what should be the law.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, since the idea and the subject matter has
been inputted, I will gladly discuss this more fully with the honorable
Commissioner
at some other time and place. I just want to say that regarding these
accusations about the partisanship of NAMFREL, many observers also say
that those who
claim that NAMFREL was partisan were those who wanted to cheat. And with
respect to the appointment of NAMFREL people in government, I think civicminded
people who are qualified to hold government positions are not disqualified
for having participated in a nonpartisan organization like NAMFREL.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I be allowed to ask two clarificatory
questions?
Section 5, lines 26 to 29 reads:
. . . However, final decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission on
Elections on municipal and barangay officials shall be final, inappealable and
executory.
My question is: Why do we limit finality of decisions to cases of municipal
and barangay officials? Why do we exclude city and provincial officials? Are
we
not discriminating against city and provincial officials? What is the
explanation, Madam President?
MR. FOZ: Under existing law, the decisions of the municipal courts as regards
barangay election contests are final.
MR. SARMIENTO: What about municipal officials? What makes them different
from city officials?
MR. FOZ: Let me finish my reply.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you.
MR. FOZ: But in the case of electoral contests involving municipal officials,
the decisions of the municipal court are appealable to the Regional Trial
Court at present. So under this provision the decisions of the Commission on
Elections would also be final in the case of municipal and barangay officials.
In the case of city and provincial officials, I cannot recall the existing law. But,
I have the idea that they can be tried by the Regional Trial Court,
and its decisions are appealable to the Intermediate Appellate Court.
MR. SARMIENTO: Will the sponsor agree with the possible inclusion of city
officials in the finality of decisions of the Commission on Elections?
MR. FOZ: We have no basic objection to that, but this may raise some kind of
a howl from those who are involved.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I proceed to my next question, Madam President.
Section 5, line 25 reads: certiorari by the aggrieved party thirty days from
receipt. Is the Committee contemplating a period within 30 days from
receipt
of a copy thereof?
MR. FOZ: I am sorry, Madam President. There was really an omission here.
There should be the word within to precede thirty days.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Tadeo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, bilang paglilinaw lang po. Section 1 (3), lines 9
to 11 of the provisions on the Civil Service Commission, states:
No member of the civil service shall be removed, suspended or otherwise
disciplined except for just causes as may be provided by law.
Ginamit po natin dito ay plural, just causes. Does this mean that the
ground to remove, suspend or discipline must be at least more than one
cause? Hindi
ba sapat na iyong isa o kinakailangang higit sa isa?
MR. FOZ: Just one cause, of course, may be sufficient. This is really a misprint
again. It should be only in the singular, just cause.
MR. TADEO: Another point, Section 1 (4), lines 12 to 14 states:
No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly,
in any partisan political activity.
Doon po sa 1973 Constitution, Section 5 of the provisions on the Civil Service
Commission, ang nakasaad ay ito: including members of the Armed Forces.
Batay sa ating karanasan, kahit nakalagay na roon iyong tungkol sa
members of the Armed Forces, naging partisan pa rin sila. Bakit natin inalis
ngayon?
MR. FOZ: In reply to that, the same was formulated in coordination with the
Committee on General Provisions, which has specific provisions regarding the
members of the Armed Forces. And one of the specific provisions approved
by the Committee on General Provisions is precisely the one which prohibits
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines from engaging in partisan
political activity. That is the reason.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I add to that. It is also our
understanding that the military is not part of the civil service and, therefore,
must be
dealt with in another section of the Constitution.
MR. TADEO: Section 4, page 3, lines 5 to 8, states:
Unless otherwise provided by law, no elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in a temporary or acting capacity to any public
office or position during his term.
Doon po sa 1973 Constitution, Section 1 of the provisions on the Civil Service
Commission, ang nakasaad ay to any office, hindi po kasama ang public.
Bakit nilagyan natin ngayon ng public? Hindi ba ito magiging isang butas?
Halimbawa mayroong isang magaling na mayor. Dahil sa ang kanyang ViceMayor ay
ating kamag-anak, puwede nating ilagay iyong Mayor sa isang office na hindi
public para mailagay iyong ating kamag-anak na Vice-Mayor bilang Mayor.
Doon sa
1973 Constitution ang nakasaad ay any office, pero itong ating
MR. FOZ: This would be a common sentence or provision for all the three
constitutional commissions, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let me call the sponsors attention to Section 4, page 3 of the proposed
draft, particularly lines 5 to 8. Commissioner Tadeo already asked the
sponsor
about the insertion of the word public to define the word office. My
question is this: We will recall that under the 1973 Constitution, Article 12
(B),
Section 4 (1) it was expressly provided in no uncertain terms that no elective
official shall be eligible for appointment to any office or position during
his term of office. However, again, this is one of the hangovers from the past
regime. Certain elective officials were appointed to multifarious positions
in the government, the most outstanding example of which is my kabalen
who was at that time not only governor but was also the Minister of Justice
and
Solicitor-General. Did the sponsor have these officials in mind in proposing
the provision which reads:
Unless otherwise provided by law, no elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in a temporary or acting capacity to any public
office or position during his term?
MR. FOZ: Of course, we did not have in mind the Commissioners kabalen.
But I filed a resolution which adopted the original provision of the 1973
Constitution, but in our committee deliberations, it was the consensus to add
that clause: Unless otherwise provided by law, so I was overruled.
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President, because a provision was contained in
Resolution No. 110 that was submitted in a plebiscite on January 27, 1984
which would
substantiate the sponsors proposed amendment because in that plebiscite
this provision was approved, which reads:
Unless otherwise provided by law, no elective official shall be eligible for
appointment to any office or position during his tenure except as Member of
the Cabinet,
taking into consideration the semi-parliamentary system of government that
was established during the Marcos administration. Is it the intention of the
sponsor to adopt the amended provision that was introduced in the plebiscite
held on January 27, 1984? Is my understanding correct, Madam President?
MR. FOZ: No, Madam President, because as presently worded in our draft,
the phraseology of this provision does not mention exceptions which were
provided
in the 1973 Constitution. We do not have these in the draft of the provision.
MR. SUAREZ: But when we use the phrase temporary or acting capacity,
this might give the impression that an elective official may be eligible for
appointment or designation in a permanent capacity.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I believe the intent of the Committee by the
phrase for appointment or designation is this: appointment refers to a
permanent capacity and designation to a temporary or acting capacity.
However, to clarify the intent of the Committee, we are willing to entertain
an
amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
The last point is with respect to Section 6, page 3, lines 13 to 16 where
mention is made about civilian positions in the government. Again, I refer the
sponsor back to the past regime. Does the sponsor mean that civilian
positions refer to positions in the Bureau of Customs, Land Transportation
Commission, Veterans Administration and Manila International Airport where
army officers were appointed to during the past regime? Is my understanding
correct, Madam President?
MR. FOZ: We are not referring to a particular office but we have been
prompted to draft this provision to forestall the general practice in the last
few
years of appointing military men in the active service to purely civilian
positions. We do not see any reasonable basis for such practice.
MR. SUAREZ: Does civilian positions include those positions, whether
permanent or temporary, in institutions like the Jacinto Steel Mills and the
MERALCO?
MR. FOZ: Those corporations mentioned by the Commissioner are under
some kind of government control.
MR. SUAREZ: Not in the case of MERALCO and the Jacinto Steel Mills; those
are purely a private concern.
MR. FOZ: In the case of the Jacinto Steel Mills, I understand it has been
foreclosed by government institutions.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, it may have been foreclosed by the government but,
nonetheless, it is still a private corporation.
MR. FOZ: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: So, the Committee would not prohibit the appointment,
temporary or otherwise, of members of the Armed Forces in the active
service to positions
like officer-in-charge of the MERALCO or of the Jacinto Steel Mills?
MR. FOZ: That would come within the spirit of our proposed provision.
MR. SUAREZ: I see.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more speakers who wish to
interpellate, therefore, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and
debate on
Committee Report No. 19 on the Civil Service Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for a suspension of the session until
two-thirty in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 12:11 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:42 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Efrain B. Treas
presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Before we proceed to the period of amendments, I move that we
take up the additional Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the additional Reference of Business.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolution on First
Reading, Communication and Committee Report, the Presiding Officer
making the
corresponding references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 523, entitled:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SINCERE CONDOLENCE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986 ON THE DEATH OF THE FATHER OF
THE HONORABLE RENE V. SARMIENTO.
Sponsored by Hon. Quesada.
To the Steering Committee.
COMMUNICATION
Communication from the Civic Assembly of Women of the Philippines (CAWP),
National Council of Women, proposing provisions on the declaration of
principles
and state policies, citizenship, suffrage, constitutional commissions and
general provisions.
(Communication No. 203 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 28 on Proposed Resolution No. 522, prepared by the
Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles,
entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION ARTICLES ON
THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES,
MR. FOZ: If a law is passed regarding this matter, then such law may reverse
this provision as worded, but we have said earlier that we will entertain
suggestions from the floor.
MR. COLAYCO: Personally, I find the policy established in this provision
meritorious. To make it a firm policy, I suggest that we delete the prefatory
phrase unless otherwise provided by law.
MR. FOZ: We agree with the Commissioner.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
At this juncture, I would like to find out if the basis for our amendments will
be the amended draft Article on the Constitutional Commissions and
Agencies, copies of which were distributed yesterday.
MR. FOZ: This is the same amended draft, copies of which were distributed
yesterday.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, the amended draft which already contains the proposed
amendments of the Committee.
MR. FOZ: That is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: But there is nothing in the record to show that the basis now
would be the amended draft. So, I move that for purposes of the
deliberations of
the Commission . . .
MR. FOZ: Before the Commissioner proceeds with his motion, I would like to
inform him that before copies of this amended draft were circulated to the
Members of the Commission, there was a previous paper which contains the
committee amendments, copies of which were also distributed yesterday.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, but before a committee amendment may be
admitted, the same must be introduced in plenary session. However, I
understand that
the committee amendments are now incorporated in the amended draft.
MR. FOZ: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: So I now move that the amended draft Article of the Committee
be considered the basis of presenting the individual amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: So on the basis of the amended draft, I would like to introduce
the following amendments on page 1, Section 2, which will affect lines 5, 6
and
8.
MR. FOZ: Commissioner Davide may please proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: On Section 2, page 1, line 5, on Common Provisions of the
amended draft, insert between the words receive and annual the article
AN. On
line 6, change salaries to SALARY, and on line 8, delete the words or
increased so that the entire section will now read as follows: Until
otherwise
provided by law, the Chairman and each of the Commissioners shall receive
AN annual SALARY of one hundred twenty thousand pesos and one hundred
ten
thousand pesos, respectively, which shall not be decreased during their
tenure.
MR. FOZ: What is the purpose of the proposed amendment, Mr. Presiding
Officer?
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, first of all, insofar as annual salaries are
concerned, it should be in the singular because the Committee refers to the
annual salary of the chairman and that of each of the commissioners. And in
the matter of decrease or increase, to be consistent with the other provisions
of the Constitution, the restriction should be on the decrease not on the
increase. We prevent the legislature from decreasing the annual salary but
not
from increasing it, so it must be flexible depending on the economic
conditions of the country.
MR. FOZ: But, on the other hand, Mr. Presiding Officer, there is the possibility
that the national leadership may increase the salary of the Chairman or
the members of a commission to influence their action on cases pending
before them, and thus impair the independence that we would like to assure
them
under this new Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: In the matter of increase, Mr. Presiding Officer, the
independence of the commission will never be impaired. As a matter of fact,
it would
enhance its independence because it will be adequately compensated.
Suppose the exchange rate, two or four years from now, is P50 to a dollar, if
we do not
allow any increase during their tenure which is seven years, what will happen
to their compensation? It cannot be increased anytime within seven years,
which is even very dangerous.
MR. FOZ: We accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I remember yesterday that the Chairman
was doubtful about the amount of compensation. If we approve this now, it is
going to be fixed. So I would like to ask the Chairman whether he likes to
leave this out in the meantime.
MR. FOZ: If the Commissioner will recall, during the sponsorship of this
committee report I made the statement that personally, this amount that we
have
fixed in this Section 2 was even inadequate. So, I am amenable to the
Commissioners suggestion, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. ROMULO: So will Commissioner Davide accept an amendment to
temporarily leave out the amount of compensation indicated in line with the
Chairmans
views?
MR. -DAVIDE: I willingly accept. In other words, we just leave it blank.
MR. ROMULO: That is correct.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes, Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Just a follow up on this subject at hand. May I ask Commissioner
Davide whether or not he is in favor of formulating a general principle out of
this compensation rate for the constitutional commissions?
MR. DAVIDE: I think that would be the effect of the proposal of Commissioner
Romulo to leave it blank in the meantime.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but I mean more than that, Mr. Presiding Officer. I think
Commissioner Davide is right in pointing out that this is an era of high
volatility in currency values, exchange rates, and so on. The peso, Mr.
Presiding Officer, of 1978 in real terms is now only 28 centavos. We may say
in a
constitution that the salary of a justice of the Supreme Court is so much and
may not be diminished, but the truth is, our peso is eroding day by day
because of inflation. Fortunately, the inflation now has been placed under
control, but there were years when, as in November 1984, the inflation rate
jumped to 64 percent. And that diminished the salary of a justice or a
member of a constitutional commission in spite of a constitutional guarantee.
When I speak of raising this to the level of a general principle, I mean that
perhaps the salary or the compensation to be fixed in this Constitution which
is written for posterity, as well as for the present generation, ought to have
some flexibility. The compensation is fixed in the constitutional provision,
but can we not say or as provided by law later on?
MR. DAVIDE: Actually, Mr. Presiding Officer, the first portion of Section 2
already provides Until otherwise provided by law.
MR. OPLE: Then, that is the flexibility I am looking for.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: Before we proceed, may we request permission for the other
members of the Committee like Commissioners Rodrigo, Regalado, de
Castro, Concepcion,
Abubakar, Guingona and Rosales to join us here in front so that we can sit as
a panel and consult each other whenever amendments are submitted for our
acceptance.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: May I just make an observation to the suggestion or
amendment of Commissioner Romulo which was accepted by Commissioner
Davide to leave the
amount blank in the meantime.
We talk about inflation. Naturally, if the rate of inflation rises, even if we fix
the amount which is based, say, on todays exchange rate or valuation,
the purchasing power of the peso will be reduced. But we should also
consider that if we have a good government, less corruption and more
productivity,
there may be a deflation. That means that the exchange rate of the peso
may lower-and its purchasing power may correspondingly increase.
Sometimes, it is dangerous to fix the amount today based on our present
exchange rate or the purchasing power of the peso, because that will bind us
for
many years. In other words, I only want to make of record that while we are
always afraid of inflation, because that is really a very bad economic factor
that destroys the economic order, we are hoping that in better days we will
have a decline in inflation which will increase the purchasing power of the
peso.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: There are a number of Commissioners who desire to amend the
proposal. So, I move that we suspend the session for ten minutes to enable
them to
confer with the Committee.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is suspended.
It was 3:01 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:14 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
The proposed amendments to Section 2 of the amended draft are as follows:
On line 5, insert the word AN between the words receive and annual. On
line
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say on the
proposed amendment as amended?
MR. FOZ: The amendment is accepted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment, as amended, is approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized for an anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would rather request Commissioner
Bernas to introduce the anterior amendment because we have previously
conferred on
it.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: I wanted to give way to beauty, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: I always believe that age takes primacy over beauty. (Laughter)
FR. BERNAS: The proposed amendment is on page 2, Section 1(2).
MR. DAVIDE: Anterior amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: This is still on the Common Provisions. On Section 3, line 10,
between tenure and engage insert HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE OR
EMPLOYMENT, OR so
that the entire line 10 of Section 3 will read as follows: shall, during his
tenure, HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, OR engage in the
practice of
any.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. FOZ: The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): We shall reconsider the approval of the
amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the approval is
reconsidered.
The proposed amendment is withdrawn.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am particularly concerned about this
Section 3. Earlier I sent a note to the Committee suggesting that we sit down
and align these provisions with the provisions on the Executive which contain
practically the same words only framed in another way, because I am afraid
that with the formulation of the prohibition against the President which is
indicated now in Committee Report No. 9, there will be no symmetry
between the
two provisions. And the second which I really fear most is that there are more
prohibitory provisions in the case of the President, the Vice-President and
the members of the Cabinet than in that of the members of the constitutional
commissions. I would like to point out, for example, that we mentioned here
in
the original Section 3, the prohibition in the management of any business.
When it comes to the President, the Vice-President and the members of the
Cabinet, there is the prohibition in participating directly or indirectly in any
business. Then we also have this prohibition of the President, the
Vice-President and the members of the Cabinet: that they shall strictly avoid
any conflict of interest in the conduct of their offices. What I really mean
is that if we do not align the provisions on prohibition against the members
of the constitutional commissions with that directed against the President,
the Vice-President and the members of the Cabinet, we will have a lopsided
Article. That is why I suggested earlier that perhaps in a few minutes time
we
should align these in order to have symmetry and to achieve the purpose for
which these are intended.
MR. FOZ: But, Mr. Presiding Officer, I think we have to look at it this way. We
actually have to be stricter with the President and the members of the
Cabinet because they exercise more powers and, therefore, more checks and
restraints on them are called for because there is more possibility of abuse in
their case. Let us say in the case of the members of the constitutional
commissions, the competence and the jurisdiction are very much less
compared with
those of the President, the Vice-President and the members of the Cabinet.
So I think there is a justification for such an arrangement whereby the top
executive leaders or officials of government are subjected to more restraints.
MR. MAAMBONG: I think I have already taken much of the time of the
Commission, so we agreed on a general principle that the prohibition against
the
President, the Vice-President and the members of the Cabinet should be
stricter than that of the members of the constitutional commissions,
considering
that the newspapers abound with statements that ours is a constitution
based on hate against the former President. If we are agreed on that
proposition, I
will now sit down. But I think we should think it over first so that we can
really align these provisions with that on the Executive. The Committee on
Style will not have a hard time because only some substantive provisions
might not be aligned with the prohibitions in all these offices. I just want to
put that issue clearly on the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. FOZ: The Committee, in the first place, has nothing to do with those
provisions which were adopted in the Committee on the Executive. So, we
are not in
a position to make any pronouncement, declaration or stand at this point.
The individual members of the Committee will pass judgment on those
proposed
provisions at the proper time.
MR. MAAMBONG: Shall we leave this point, therefore, with an open statement
that this is subject to consultations between the Chairmen of this Committee
and
the Committee on the Executive, and that in the final draft of the
Constitution this will be looked into again more closely, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. FOZ: I think so, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
of hours, and these part-time teachers shall not in any way have any hand in
the management of any educational institution.
Teaching law is not considered a profession because it is not the advocacy or
the handling of a case in court or a legal work or business for which they
are compensated. It is actually imparting to the students what they know
about the law. Just like doctors of medicine, when they teach medicine, they
are
not practicing medicine. They do not give curative, palliative or any other
treatment.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are not talking here of permit by
higher authority for one to teach law or his profession, but of prohibiting any
commissioner of any constitutional commission to engage in the practice of
any profession. The point here is: Does engaging in the practice of any
profession include teaching? The Honorable Regalado talked about medicine.
He is not actually practicing medicine, but he is teaching his students
medicine. Is that not a practice? As I said, when a lawyer practices law, he
does research and teach jurisprudence. When he makes pleadings, he also
does
research and studies jurisprudence. Where is the practice and the
nonpractice? So, I ask that this question be put to the floor to cut the
proceedings:
Does engage in the practice of any profession include teaching?
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to ask Commissioner de Castro only one question.
Is it not true that the practice of law involves an attorney-client relationship?
It seems to me that in teaching, there is no attorney-client relations.
MR. DE CASTRO: When a lawyer appears before the Supreme Court as an
amicus curiae, he is practicing law; he has no client.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: We would like to submit the question to the body.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the position of the Committee is that
teaching is not prohibited under this provision.
MR. PADILLA: I believe that the provision in the 1935 Constitution is better in
the sense that the prohibition or the inhibition in the management of any
private enterprise is limited to those that may be affected by the functions of
the concerned. If we make this absolutely general and comprehensive, it
may
discourage good people who may want to serve and who are fully qualified in
the different constitutional commissions, for example, a member may be in
the
balut business which has no relation whatever to the function of being a
commissioner of a constitutional commission. Not only that, it will eliminate a
member who has some kind of legitimate business which may not in anyway
interfere with or affect the discharge of his public functions. If we insist on
this, it may discourage some deserving public servants, who have private
businesses, for appointment Otherwise, we may have members of a
constitutional
commission who have no other source of income. And this might be a
temptation for them to utilize the functions of their office for additional
extraneous
means. So, my amendment is to qualify the term in the management of any
business by adopting the provision of the 1935 Constitution.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. FOZ: To the proponent of the amendment, just what will be the effect of
his amendment on the rest of the provision?
MR. PADILLA: There is none because in the 1935 Constitution, it continues:
nor shall they, directly or indirectly, be financially interested in any
contract; it is the same.
MR. FOZ: Under the Commissioners amendment, he would allow a member
of a constitutional commission to be in any kind of business as long as it is
not
affected by the functioning of his office.
MR. PADILLA: Correct, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: In other words, the Commissioner is trying to avoid a conflict of
interests.
MR. PADILLA: Correct.
MR. FOZ: But in the following portions of the provision, the objective is not
exactly to avoid a conflict of interest, because it says there that the
MR. FOZ: In the case of a printer, if he is in the printing business but he does
not do any business with the COMELEC, would the Commissioner still
prohibit him to engage in that kind of business?
MR. PADILLA: It would be the sponsors interpretation and mine because the
1935 Constitution was quite strict on this for it says private enterprise which
in any way may be affected by the functions of their office. So, it is not
necessary that he be directly involved already, even if it may affect the
function. He should not be in that kind of business.
MR. FOZ: The mere possibility then of being affected by the function of his
office would be sufficient to bar him from being a member of the
commission.
MR. PADILLA: I would not say possibility, maybe probability. The chances
are that it will in a way affect the function of his office.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Padilla state his
amendment so that the Committee can either accept or not accept it.
MR. FOZ: The Committee accepts the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA.: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would object.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Davide is recognized
first.
MR. DAVIDE: May I be allowed to explain my objection?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: The prohibition, as worded now, is in the engagement in the
management of a business. It is not prohibiting a commissioner from
engaging in
business, because if he manages that business, it would interfere with his
functions as a commissioner. He might spend more time in the management
of the
business. In short, I would like to repeat, the proposed prohibition is only in
engaging in the management of a business. It is not a prohibition to engage
in business. He can have some businesses but he should not manage them.
So, if we accept the proposal, we will really destroy the very important and
amendment to include
governance. What happened? Was that approved so that now it reads:
governance and management?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): According to the record, it was
withdrawn.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: If this word management, Mr. Presiding Officer, were
interpreted to refer to the general manager who will stay in the office of his
business
most of the time, then I would probably agree. But the word management
is very broad. A person is, say, a member of a board or even its chairman,
but is
not the general manager; maybe he does not actually administer and
manage the business, yet that is considered as top management. That is the
problem.
How do we interpret this term management? If the interpretation is that he
will be the general manager and he has to devote the hours of work in his
business, then I agree. He should not be considered as a member of any
constitutional commission. But as I said before, the 1935 Constitution
mentioned
management as control of private enterprise, and it disqualified only those
whose duty may be affected by the functions of their office.
So, my proposal is not to make this prohibition or this disqualification too
broad and comprehensive, otherwise we may have men in the commissions
who have
no business connection whatsoever and who probably have no source of
independent income. I think, so long as he is qualified and he wants to serve,
whatever secondary or tertiary business he has or whatever small
investments he may have which will not in any way affect the functions of his
office,
should not disqualify him. And so, my amendment again is: on line 11, after
the words profession or in the management of any business, add WHICH IN
ANY
WAY MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE FUNCTIONS OF HIS OFFICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say on the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla?
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, we throw question to the floor.
THE
TEACHING THEREOF. As it is, Section 3 will read: No member of a
constitutional commission shall, during his tenure, engage in the practice of
any
profession WHICH INCLUDES THE TEACHING THEREOF, or . . . and so on.
It is my stand that teaching is a practice of the profession. And I think if we
say that it is not, I do not know how the teaching profession can be
practiced.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say on the
proposed amendment?
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, we throw the question to the floor.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): As many as are in favor of the
proposed amendment of Commissioner de Castro, please raise their hand.
(Few Members
raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 3 votes in favor and 21 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer, on line 16 of page 1, I propose that
we add an S to corporation, and to delete the words any of its and
instead substitute the word THEIR. Moreover, on line 15, delete the article
a between including and government so it will read: including
government-owned or controlled-CORPORATIONS or THEIR subsidiaries.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
I think the answer of the Chairman of our Committee this morning was that it
would involve the automatic and regular release of the funds once approved.
In
addition, we are suggesting that fiscal autonomy include the nonimposition
of any other procedures, for example, a preaudit system in the commissions
or
bodies that enjoy fiscal autonomy. So, actually, the definition of fiscal
autonomy would be a bit broader than just the automatic release.
MR. DE CASTRO: Does the Commissioner mean that these commissions will
not be subjected to preaudit?
MR. MONSOD: Our proposal actually in the provisions on the Commission on
Audit is that they be subjected to comprehensive postaudit procedures and
where
their internal control system is inadequate, in the opinion of the Commission
on Audit, then the commission may also take such measures as are
necessary to
correct the inadequacies which might include special preaudit systems.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair understands, therefore, that
the proposed amendment of Commissioner de Castro is not acceptable to
the
Committee?
MR. DE CASTRO: Not yet, Mr. Presiding Officer, because we are still on the
answer to me this morning, which stated the record will bear me out
that
fiscal autonomy means the automatic release of appropriations. It means the
automatic release and nothing more. We were in the same Committee and
when we
asked the COA about this, they insisted that there must be preaudit. If fiscal
autonomy means that there will be no preaudit, I do not know what will
happen to this.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): So, what is the stand of the Committee
insofar as the proposed amendment of Commissioner de Castro is
concerned?
MR. DE CASTRO: May I just say one sentence, Mr. Presiding Officer? If the
Committees stand is that fiscal autonomy means the automatic release of
the
appropriations, then I say that the first sentence The Commissions shall
enjoy fiscal autonomy should be deleted because it is a repetition of the
second sentence.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the position of the Committee is that
fiscal autonomy may include other things than just the automatic and regular
release of the funds.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): With that explanation, what is the
pleasure of Commissioner de Castro? Does he insist on his amendment?
MR. DE CASTRO: Is the Chairman changing his answer from this mornings
question? If he does, I will ask some more questions about fiscal autonomy.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think at the beginning of this exchange,
we already told the honorable Commissioner that the Chairman of the
Committee
had not meant to make it an all-inclusive definition. And if he was misled into
thinking of another meaning, we apologize for it. But our position is that
fiscal autonomy would include other rights than just merely automatic and
regular disbursement.
MR. DE CASTRO: Does it include exception from preaudit?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, it would include the imposition; of certain preaudit
requirements for release, because if the preaudit requirements are inserted
into the
process of release, it would defeat the objective of automatic and regular
release.
MR. DE CASTRO: When we talk of preaudit, we are not talking of release; we
are talking of preaudit of a certain project or a certain matter for which the
budget may be used. That is the preaudit system. But for the release from
the Budget Commissioner, there is no preaudit.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the preaudit procedures include the right
to disallow any expenditures which, in the opinion of the auditor, is not
consistent with what is proper.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: And, therefore, the preaudit procedures include the right to
stop disbursement.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, but not the release, because the release that we are
talking about here is the release from the Budget Commissioner, not the
release of
the funds for which it may be used for the project.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I am willing to keep these two sentences as of now until
we come to the Commission on Audit on preaudit. Then, we will understand it
better; and from then on, I will make my appropriate amendment on this
common provision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): So, do we understand from
Commissioner de Castro that he is for the moment withdrawing his proposed
amendment?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, until we reach the portions on the
Commission on Audit where we will explain what is a preaudit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Then we shall proceed.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, just for a point of clarification. When we
say release the funds, it is the other side of disbursing to the
appropriate commission. So that if a preaudit procedure is exercised and
there is a prohibition of disallowance, the release cannot be made and,
therefore,
the disbursement cannot be made.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Just one sentence, Mr. Presiding Officer. When we talk of
appropriations for the Commissions, once approved, shall be automatically
released, is this not directed to the Budget Commission to release the funds
of the Commission or is this for the procurement by the Commission of
certain
matters which need preaudit?
MR. MONSOD: Under the preaudit procedures, if the COA auditor does not
allow the expenditure, then the Ministry of the Budget cannot release those
funds.
And, therefore, the Commission or any agency cannot disburse it for the
expenditures for which it was budgeted.
MR. DE CASTRO: Let us read: Appropriations for the Commissions once
approved shall be automatically released.
Who will release?
MR. MONSOD: The Ministry of the Budget will release such funds to the
Commission.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendments are approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized for an
amendment to the same section.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer, Commissioner Davide has
introduced the amendment that I was going to suggest.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Regalado be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I address this to the sponsor, although I
am a member of the Committee. I am asking this question just for
clarification not only for myself but also for the other Members of the
Commission. But first, before I state the question, I would like to bring to his
attention what appears to be a typographical error on line 25: after the
words certiorari by the aggrieved party, insert WITHIN.
For clarification and for the benefit of all, my question is: What is the reason
of the Committee in adopting the last sentence of Section 5, lines 26 to
29, declaring final and executory decisions or orders of the Commission on
Elections with respect to municipal and barangay officials?
MR. FOZ: In Committee Report No. 27 on Proposed Resolution No. 521, copies
of which have been distributed to all the Members, there is a provision
among
the powers and functions of the Commission on Elections which would vest
the Commission with the power of being the sole judge of all contests
relating to
the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective provincial, city,
municipal and barangay officials.
MR. REGALADO: But my question is: Does this mean that with respect to
decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commission on Elections not involving
municipal and barangay officials, the same will not be immediately executory
or final but would still be appealable? We seem to have made a distinction
here.
MR. FOZ: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. In the case of electoral contests involving,
let us say, city and provincial officials, the decision of the Commission
on Elections will not be final and still be appealable to the higher courts.
MR. REGALADO: With respect, however, to the wordings barangay officials
on line 28, parenthetically, Commissioner Nolledo, I understand, in the
Committee
on Local Governments, wants a return to the term barrio instead of
barangay. At any rate, it says here that final decisions, orders or rulings
with
respect to municipal and barangay officials shall be final, inappealable and
executory. May I propose an amendment to delete the word inappealable?
In
the first place, this should read unappealable. Line 28 should read: . . .
barangay officials shall be final and IMMEDIATELY executory.
MR. FOZ: So, the amendment is to delete the word inappealable.
MR. REGALADO: Before that, on page 26, line 26, we should have a
transposition because decisions are always final, as distinguished from
interlocutory
orders. So, it should read: However, decisions, final orders or rulings, to
distinguish them from interlocutory orders, . . . of the Commission on
Elections on municipal and barangay officials shall be final and IMMEDIATELY
executory.
That would be my proposed amendment.
MR. FOZ: Accepted, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: It is understood, however, that while these decisions with
respect to barangay and municipal officials are final and immediately
executory
and, therefore, not appealable, that does not rule out the possibility of an
original special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus, as the
case may be, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
MR. FOZ: That is understood, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: At least it is on record.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment is on line 27; between the words on and
municipal, insert the following: CONTESTS RELATING TO THE ELECTIONS,
RETURNS, AND
QUALIFICATIONS OF.
MR. REGALADO: That would be acceptable because that is uniform with our
own provisions in the Committees on the Legislative and the Executive.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say on the
proposed amendment?
MR. FOZ: The amendment is accepted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: On this last sentence that has specific reference to the
Commission on Elections, will the Committee agree to have this transferred
to the
Commission on Elections? I understand that it was inserted here for fear of
the general rule that every final order or decision is subject to appeal by
certiorari within 30 days. But it seems a little awkward that in the Common
Provisions, we have specific provisions; however, that has particular
reference
to the Commission on Elections. My suggestion is to transfer this last
sentence to the Commission on Elections so that there will be no fear that
when
there is a general provision and a specific provision, it is always the specific
provision that governs or prevails. It is a matter of form.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes, Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: In line with the suggestion of Commissioner Padilla, with
which I concur, I would like to call the attention of the Committee that we
have
Committee Report No. 27, and Section 10, page 4 of this committee report
specifically states: final decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission on
election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be
final, inappealable and executory. In effect, it is only a repetition of what
The proposed amendments will be on Section 5. On line 20, after the word
Commission, put a comma (,) and insert the following: OR A DIVISION
THEREOF
WHENEVER AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS ARTICLE, then put a comma (,).
On line 21, between the words case and brought, insert OR MATTER.
On line 22, between the words for and resolution, insert the words
DECISION OR; and after the period (.), following resolution, add the
following new
sentence: A CASE OR MATTER IS DEEMED SUBMITTED FOR DECISION OR
RESOLUTION UPON THE FILING OF THE LAST PLEADING, BRIEF, OR
MEMORANDUM REQUIRED BY THE RULES
OF THE COMMISSION OR BY THE COMMISSION ITSELF. So that the first two
sentences of Section 5 will now read as follows: Each Commission OR A
DIVISION
THEREOF WHENEVER AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS ARTICLE, shall decide by a
majority vote of all its members any case OR MATTER brought before it
within sixty days
from the date of its submission for DECISION OR resolution. A CASE OR
MATTER IS DEEMED SUBMITTED FOR DECISION OR RESOLUTION UPON THE
FILING OF THE LAST
PLEADING, BRIEF, OR MEMORANDUM REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF THE
COMMISSION OR BY THE COMMISSION ITSELF.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, on the first proposed amendment we
wanted to give the COMELEC the flexibility to promulgate its own rules with
respect
to decisions by division. Among the commissions, it is only the COMELEC that
meets by division, and they wanted that flexibility because there may be
instances where they may say that they may require more than a majority,
or a unanimous vote according to their own rules and regulations. So, we
want to
be silent on that in this section.
MR. DAVIDE: With that interpretation, I would not insist on the proposed
amendment on line 20. So the rest of the proposed amendments would stay.
MR. MONSOD: Just a point of clarification. Is the sentence that the
Commissioner read with the phrase is deemed submitted, similar to the
one in the
Judiciary?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
of the
President, considering that this input will not be lost when this proposed
amendment is finally presented at the right time.
So, thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Thank you also.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are now in the period of amendments on
the Article on Civil Service. So, I ask that Commissioner Blas Ople continue
his
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Ople may proceed.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, the only possible objection that I can imagine
to this amendment is that it rightfully belongs to another section of the
Constitution. And I think I should make public what Commissioner Monsod
has just told me. His impression is that a provision on self-organization and
collective bargaining is contemplated to be included in the report of the
Committee on Social Justice. Does this make this provision redundant,
superfluous, unnecessary? I do not think so. The proper place for this
guarantee should be in the Article on the Civil Service Commission.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, we have no objection to the proposed
section. We just wanted to make it of record that in the event the
sponsorship
committee, for example, looks at the total Constitution and it will find that it
properly belongs to somewhere else, then we will yield to such decision.
But we have no objection to putting it now in the civil service section.
MR. OPLE: We will welcome this action of the Committee, of course, without
yielding the principle that the nexus to freedom of association ought to be
located for government employees in this specific Article that deals with
them as members of the civil service of the Philippines.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The post amendment has been
accepted by the Committee.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, just one manifestation in relation to the
amendment of Commissioner Ople.
symbolizes the unity of the nation, but it does perform a mundane task as
well. It is an employer in every sense of the word except that terms and
conditions of work are set forth through a Civil Service Commission. The
government is the biggest employer in the Philippines. There is an employeremployee relationship and we all know that the accumulated grievances of
several decades are now beginning to explode in our faces among
government workers who feel that the rights afforded by the Labor Code, for
example, to
workers in the private sector have been effectively denied to workers in
government in what looks like a grotesque, a caricature of the equal
protection of
the laws. For example, I still remember that there were many occasions
under the old government when wages and cost of living allowances were
granted to
workers in the private sector but denied to workers in the government for
some reason or another, and the government did not even state the reasons
why.
The government employees were being discriminated against. As a rule, the
majority of the worlds countries now entertain public service unions. What
they
really add up to is that the employees of the government form their own
associations. Generally, they do not bargain for wages because these are
fixed in
the budget but they do acquire a forum where, among other things,
professional and self-development is promoted and encouraged. They also
act as watchdogs
of their own bosses so that when graft and corruption is committed,
generally, it is the unions who are no longer afraid by virtue of the armor of
self-organization that become the publics own allies for detecting graft and
corruption and for exposing it. And so, I still maintain on behalf of the
proponents: Sister Christine Tan, Minda Luz Quesada, Jaime Tadeo, Eulogio
Lerum and myself, that this is an amendment that the Committee should
consider
and that the Commission should approve.
Thank you very much.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Gentleman yield to some questions, Mr. Presiding
Officer?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Ople yield?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I understand that in the government,
there are two basic functions involved: the sovereign or governmental
functions
and the proprietary functions, because one cannot deny that the government
also engages in proprietary functions. And the Commissioner has said that
government employees, notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution
on civil service, should be given their right to self-organization. Does the
Commissioner agree with me that the right to self-organization includes not
only the right to form unions but also the right to engage in concerted
activities like strike or picketing? Does he mean to say that the right to selforganization should apply to both governmental and proprietary functions?
MR. OPLE: Yes, but I distinguish between the right to self-organization and
collective bargaining and the right to self-organization only. And the original
version collective bargaining was incorporated into this provision.
MR. NOLLEDO: I understand that the settled rule in the United States and
even in the Philippines at present is that with respect to governmental
functions,
government employees cannot engage in concerted activities, because if all
of them will go on strike at the same time, the government will be
completely
paralyzed; and, therefore, the national interest may be adversely affected, as
observed by Senator Padilla.
MR. OPLE: In the United States today, as the Commissioner knows, especially
under state governments, there are many states where the right to
self-organization for the public service is fully recognized. In Japan, this is a
right fully recognized. The strongest unions in Japan are the public
service unions. In Malaysia, they reorganized the Malaysian Trade Union
Congress recently and the public service unions became the dominant
component of
the MTUC. One does not hear of government employees striking in Japan or
in Malaysia or in the United States, except in Japan, the so-called spring
offensives, when the National Railways System it is a governmentcontrolled corporation generally goes on strike for a new bonus.
That is about all. But I think we should not exaggerate the potential for
disaster in public service unions because the worlds experience so far shows
we
can trust our own people in the government to be responsible.
MR. NOLLEDO: Would not the Commissioner be satisfied, if we state that with
respect to governmental functions, government employees will form
associations
for their mutual benefit and then take advantage of the provision in the Bill
of Rights, that they can present to the government petitions for redress of
grievances, instead of allowing them to strike, which may take a lot of time
resulting in a stalemate, and in paralyzation of government activities?
MR. OPLE: I will not expect any strike in government as a result of this. The
arbitration powers of the state remains intact.
MR. NOLLEDO: I hope Commissioner Ople will not mind, because when he
was the incumbent Minister of Labor, he kept on saying that government
employees, in
the exercise of governmental functions, have no right to strike but only to
petition for redress of grievances. Am I right?
MR. OPLE: Yes, because at that time, the climate for policy reforms in labor
was rather limited. But now, if one does not entertain this amendment, we
are,
in effect, reducing the benefits of labor, and because President Aquino had
already announced that public service employees should have the right to
self-organization.
MR. NOLLEDO: And if my memory serves me right, without disparaging my
worthy colleague, he said that if government employees exercising
governmental
functions should be allowed to strike, the facilities of the government are not
sufficient to meet the exigencies that may result from such strike.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: In principle, government employees can simultaneously walk out.
Even now, without this amendment, which the teachers have been happily
doing, and
I want to give the information to the Commission that in the Ministry of Labor
and Employment right now, they are registering public service unions and
nothing catastrophic has followed as a consequence. As a matter of fact,
they hold weekly forums in that ministry where employees have already
organized
the first public service unions. And they talk of how to cooperate with the
leadership. And now I am just told that another sponsor of this amendment
would
like to share my time, which I now willingly relinquish, with the leave of the
Presiding Officer, to Commissioner Lerum.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just interpose a note here before
Commissioner Lerum is recognized, because the Honorable Padilla, in his
statement, I think, suggested that the Committee has agreed without
reflection. We just wanted to say that this matter has been thoroughly
discussed in
many forums including the Bishops-Businessmens Conference and our
consultation with labor that this very same Constitutional Commission
conducted at the
Executive Building in Manila, and our agreement to the proposed new section
was based on the wording on the right to self-organization. Perhaps, the
honorable Commissioners Padilla and Nolledo are reading too much into the
section. As a matter of fact, during the consultations with labor, the Industrial
Relations Department of the University of the Philippines suggested that with
self-organization, it is perfectly possible to have what we call collective
negotiations rather than collective bargaining.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Lerum be recognized for three minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Lerum is recognized for
three minutes.
MR. LERUM: I think what I will try to say will not take that long. When we
proposed this amendment providing for self-organization of government
employees,
it does not mean that because they have the right to organize, they also
have the right to strike. That is a different matter. We are only talking about
organizing, uniting as a union. With regard to the right to strike, everyone will
remember that in the Bill of Rights, there is a provision that the right
to form associations or societies whose purpose is not contrary to law shall
not be abridged. Now then, if the purpose of the state is to prohibit the
strikes coming from employees exercising government functions, that could
be done because the moment that is prohibited, then the union which will go
on
strike will be an illegal union. And that provision is carried in Republic Act
875. In Republic Act 875, workers, including those from the governmentowned
and controlled corporations, are allowed to organize but they are prohibited
from striking. So, the fear of our honorable Vice-President is unfounded. It
does not mean that because we approve this resolution, it carries with it the
right to strike. That is a different matter. As a matter of fact that subject
is now being discussed in the Committee on Social Justice because we are
trying to find a solution to this problem. We know that this problem exists;
that
the moment we allow anybody in the government to strike, then what will
happen if the members of the Armed Forces will go on strike? What will
happen to
those people trying to protect us? So that is a matter of discussion in the
Committee on Social Justice. But, I repeat, the right to form an organization
does not carry with it the right to strike.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Notwithstanding the fact that the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople has been accepted by the
Committee,
nevertheless, it appears that there is an objection on the part of
Commissioner Padilla. We shall vote on the proposed amendment.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, before the vote, may I ask that
Commissioner Quesada be recognized for one minute on the same subject.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, I would like to support the position already expressed by
two of the sponsors, and that is for the Commissioners to give more respect
and
faith in the government workers. We need this particular civil service
provision expressed explicitly. As a government employee for the past 26
years, I
have experienced harassment and intimidation even in the effort to organize,
not for the purpose of any collective bargaining. Just the mere fact of
organizing in a government institution somehow received repressive actions
from the authorities. So, we believe that we need this particular provision for
the protection of government workers who remain one of the most exploited,
underpaid and overworked sectors in our country.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: For an orderly procedure, in what part of the Civil Service
Commission is this amendment going to be placed? It will be the last section.
Yes,
because the last section, as it is now, is Section 7; so, this will be Section 8 of
the Civil Service Commission.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I say a few words.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Two minutes.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. Commissioners Lerum and Quesada
say that this is limited to self-organization, and it does not include the right
tenure but are only exempting from competitive examination as a means for
determining merit and fitness.
The reason for this is, for instance, that a highly technical position is defined
as something which requires more than just ordinary professionalism. For
instance, an atomic scientist would be a highly technical professional; so, if
we have somebody to be appointed to the Atomic Energy Commission, any
scientist worth his salt would not want to submit to a competitive
examination in order to qualify for this position. That is the only objective of
the
exceptions.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Will the Gentleman yield to a few questions?
FR. BERNAS: Very willingly.
MR. SUAREZ: I take it that under this particular section there will be only one
level for the career civil service men and that is those who have passed
the competitive examinations. The Commissioner is proposing that we
reincorporate the existing provisions under the 1973 Constitution with
reference to
those three classifications already mentioned which are noncompetitive in
character, such as: (1) policy-determining; (2) primarily confidential; and (3)
highly technical in nature.
FR. BERNAS: These are noncompetitive in the sense that they do not have to
undergo competitive examinations for purposes of determining merit and
fitness.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, but, nonetheless, they would satisfy the
requirement of merit and fitness.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, but there has to be some other way of determining their
merit and fitness, not by competitive examination.
MR. SUAREZ: Therefore, the Commissioner would want to substantially
reincorporate in this section the provision under the 1973 Constitution?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, but the position of the phrase has been changed for
purposes of clarity, because the original phraseology of the 1973
Constitution, which
was a copy of the 1935 Constitution, led to the conclusion that these
positions are not covered by security of tenure. There was a decision of the
Supreme
Court to that effect, which subsequently was changed by that body, saying
that the only thing they are exempted from is competitive examination.
MR. SUAREZ: When the Commissioner speaks about the Supreme Court
decision, is he referring to holding the position at the pleasure of the
appointing power?
FR. BERNAS: No.
MR. SUAREZ: I am referring only to those falling within the three categories
mentioned by the Commissioner. Do I take it that, as proposed by the
Commissioner, these career or civil service eligibles, in spite of the fact that
they did not pass any competitive examinations, would, nonetheless, enjoy
security of tenure?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: And they should not be holding their offices at the pleasure or
displeasure of the appointing power?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: The only thing which can confuse here is regarding the positions
that are primarily confidential. If a person occupies such a position and he
has lost the confidence of his superior, then his position is terminated.
However, the Supreme Court has always said that termination is not
equivalent to
removal but rather the end of his term, because it is coterminous with
confidence.
MR. SUAREZ: So that is the only exception.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: With respect to the two other classifications, the policydetermining and the highly technical positions, should they enjoy that
measure of
security of tenure?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
which
amount to the spoils system.
FR. BERNAS: The Supreme Court has always said that, but if the law of the
administrative agency says that a position is primarily confidential when in
fact
it is not, we can always challenge that in court. It is not enough that the law
call it primarily confidential to make it such; it is the nature of the
duties which makes a position primarily confidential.
MR. FOZ: The effect of a declaration that a position is policy-determining,
primarily confidential or highly technical as an exception is to take it
away from the usual rules and provisions of the Civil Service Law and to
place it in a class by itself so that it can avail itself of certain privileges
not available to the ordinary run of government employees and officers.
FR. BERNAS: As I have already said, this classification does not do away with
the requirement of merit and fitness. All it says is that there are certain
positions which should not be determined by competitive examination.
For instance, I have just mentioned a position in the Atomic Energy
Commission. Shall we require a physicist to undergo a competitive
examination before
appointment? Or a confidential secretary or any position in policydetermining administrative bodies, for that matter? There are other ways of
determining
merit and fitness than competitive examination. This is not a denial of the
requirement of merit and fitness.
MR. FOZ: But experience has shown that these matters have been the source
of abuse. One of the effects of such a declaration is to remove it from the
general run of government employees. Therefore, holders of these positions
enjoy better rates of pay and compensation.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have said everything I want to say, so I
submit it to a vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is the proposed amendment
acceptable to the Committee?
MR. FOZ: The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: What is the difference as far as the clause as may be provided by
law is concerned?
MR. PADILLA: The fear I entertain is that when a civil service employee has
done an act which may be a cause for his suspension or removal as provided
by
law, that may be all right. But a subsequent law may add additional causes,
and his act may be anterior to that, so that subsequent law should not be
given
any retroactive effect. The phrase as provided by law is all right, but the
former phrase as may be provided by law might entertain the idea of a
subsequent law being enlarged or additional causes being included therein.
The fear is that it might be justified by this phrase as may be, instead of
the old text as provided by law.
MR. FOZ: But what about his proposal to delete the word just before
cause?
MR. PADILLA: I propose to delete the word just because the law has already
provided the causes. If there is a cause provided by law which will justify an
employees suspension or dismissal, well and good. However, others might
say: That cause is not just. So it will give rise to some unholy discussions
and
court proceedings to determine whether the cause already provided by law is
just or unjust. In other words, I do not see any improvement by the addition
of
these words over the two similar provisions in both Constitutions except the
words removed in one and dismissed in the other, which mean the same
thing, which were already provided in the previous Constitutions. However, if
we do not intend to make any substantive change, we might as well adopt
the
former text, because that has already been recognized and has probably
received judicial interpretation.
MR. FOZ: On the proposition that the term for cause has acquired a definite
meaning in law and for the reason stated by the proponent regarding the last
clause, the Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Committee has accepted the
amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the proposed
amendment is approved.
express
their views although the intention is not really to allow them to take part
actively in a political campaign.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the point of the Chairman of the
Committee is well-taken, but I believe his fear is more apparent than real. In
fact,
the explicit proviso except to vote, is, in effect, a definitive qualification of
that general prohibition against participation in partisan political
activity, because it is axiomatic that voting is a partisan political activity. In
other words, the fear expressed by Commissioner Foz may be off-tangent.
MR. FOZ: We accept the amendment with that clarification.
MS. AQUINO: I thank Commissioner Foz; and I also thank the Presiding
Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Committee has accepted the
amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the proposed
amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I seek recognition of Commissioner Suarez
for his amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have the same amendment similar to or
identical with the amendment just approved now.
MR. DAVIDE: I seek the recognition of Commissioner Romulo for some
clarificatory questions before we go to other amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Can we go back to Section 3 of the Common Provisions, lines
15 and 16. It involves the phrase including government-owned or controlled
corporations or THEIR subsidiaries. Does it mean that the Philippine Airlines,
which is owned or controlled by the government, will be run according to
Civil Service rules?
MR. FOZ: No, the inclusion here of government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries has to do with the franchise or privilege
granted by
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Committee has accepted the
amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the proposed
amendment is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am not going to propose any other
amendment. I will just make a reservation to make a similar amendment to
the other
constitutional bodies.
Thank you.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: There has been a disagreement in the Committee as to the last
proposal or amendment. May I move for a reconsideration of the approval of
the last
amendment proposed by Commissioner Maambong?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas). Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I seek the recognition of Commissioner Quesada for an anterior
amendment on Section 1.
MR. FOZ: There is a pending matter.
MR. DAVIDE: I am sorry.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we explain our reason and then
leave it up to the body. The reason the Committee thought about not
subjecting the
appointments to the Commission on Appointments is the desire not to
introduce partisan politics into these constitutional commissions. It is our
understanding that the composition of the Commission on Appointments
would be something similar to the old Commission on Appointments.
We were a little concerned that, for example, the Commissioners of the
Commission on Elections would now be the subject of haggling and horse
trading such
that the list would now be composed of nominees of political parties. We
were afraid that this would hurt the integrity of the electoral process.
In the case of the Judiciary, which is allowed to have appointments, there is a
Judicial and Bar Council. However, it is our contention that in the case of
the Judiciary, judges are appointed for life; whereas, in the case of the
constitutional commissions, there is a natural stopper because the terms of
the
commissioners will in no case exceed seven years.
So this was some sort of a trade-off here and we wanted to insulate these
constitutional commissions from politics. That was the reason for that
provision.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we put the issue to a vote, may
I be allowed to put in a few words?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Commissioner has two minutes.
MR. MAAMBONG: I sympathize with the concern of the Committee regarding
the appointments of the members of the commission through the
Commission on
Appointments, but I would like the Committee to understand that if the
appointments will not go through the process of being gone over by the
members of
the Commission on Appointments, then the logical conclusion is that it would
only be the President, himself a politician, who will decide.
Second, Mr. Presiding Officer, historically in the 1935 Constitution, members
of the constitutional commissions went through the Commission on
Appointments. The only reason this was deleted in the 1973 Constitution was
there was no more Commission on Appointments. As stated by
Commissioner Monsod,
in the case of the members of the Judiciary, we do have a Judicial and Bar
Council that can go over their qualifications.
I feel very strongly that we should put the members of the constitutional
commissions through a process of screening by the Commission on
Appointments as
far as their qualifications are concerned.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: May I just have a minute? I just want to say that in drafting the
provision, we took into consideration the staggered terms of the
Commissioners so that not at any one time will they be beholden to one
President.
As a matter of fact, the appointment provision as now drafted says that even
when an appointee takes the unexpired term of one commissioner, he cannot
be
reappointed. Moreover, we feel that there are safeguards in the system that
would prevent one person from dominating the commissions.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, just one word in support of the
amendment of Commissioner Maambong.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: I sympathize with the intention of the Committee to insulate the
Civil Service Commission against politics, but as Commissioner Maambong
said,
the President is as much a political animal as the members of Congress.
Moreover, in response to the argument that after all the terms are staggered,
we should remember that the first appointees will be appointed by the same
President. One principal complaint we had against the past administration
was that the power of appointment became subject to abuse because it was
not
subject to any check.
The proposal of Commissioner Maambong is precisely to put a check on the
appointing authority, and that would be in the interest of insulating all these
commissions against politics.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, Commissioner de Castro would like to add
a little on this issue. May I seek for his recognition?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I am a member of the Committee, and when we were discussing this matter
a while ago, we were concerned about the statements made by
Commissioner Monsod on
insulating these members of the constitutional commissions from partisan
politics. I accepted that position on condition that my Resolution No. 330,
substituting a Committee on Appointments in lieu of the Commission on
Appointments, will be approved by the Committee on the Legislative. I
submitted this
resolution in view of our very bad experience with the Commission on
MS. QUESADA: He could raise this issue with the grievance machinery.
MR. RODRIGO: What is this grievance machinery?
MS. QUESADA: The Civil Service Law provides that agrievance machinery be
created to which workers can seek redress for any injustice.
MR. RODRIGO: Will this be a quasi-judicial body which can render decisions?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, the Civil Service Commission also provides for promotion
boards or grievance committees within the organization. But I am really
referring to workers who do not enjoy any kind of protection. They cannot
even seek redress from grievance committees precisely because they are
considered
casuals.
MR. RODRIGO: Who would decide the other determinant, that the service is
essential?
MS. QUESADA: I think the management of any office would be able to certify
that their services are necessary for the functioning of that particular
institution.
MR. RODRIGO: If the officer-in-charge says: No, this is not an essential
service; this is not indispensable to the service, should they go to the
grievance committee?
MS. QUESADA: I think that there are other mechanisms through which this
particular group of workers could seek some redress.
MR. RODRIGO: We are going into a lot of details. Would the Commissioner not
want to leave this to legislative action? Would she want a constitutional
mandate on this?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, because for many years, many government workers have
not been protected at all by law. It appears that politicians would much
rather have
workers remain as casuals so that they can be part of the spoils system.
MR. RODRIGO: What is the basis of setting six months and not one year?
MS. QUESADA: The private sector has this provision in the Labor Code.
MR. RODRIGO: But that is an ordinary legislation.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, but government workers do not have anything to appeal
to because there is no such law at all that protects them from this situation.
MR. RODRIGO: This is a follow-up to the point raised by Commissioner de los
Reyes.
Suppose in order to evade this constitutional provision, the officer-in-charge
dismisses the casual employee five days before the six-month period elapses
and then hires him again after five days. We get into details here. Sometimes
there are matters which are better left to ordinary legislation.
MS. QUESADA: I think the principle that has to be constitutionalized is the
need to protect government workers who are not enjoying certain rights like
the
right to self-organization and the right to security of tenure which are
enjoyed by other workers.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, just one clarificatory question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Just one question.
Under the present jurisprudence, an appointment or a commission which in
its term says it is temporary never ripens into a permanent appointment.
Under the
Commissioners proposed amendment, will an expressly temporary
appointment automatically ripen into a permanent appointment after six
months?
MS. QUESADA: That is the intention.
MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer, I move for the recognition of Commissioner
Regalado on the same subject matter after which the Commission may be
prepared to vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am one of the members of the
Committee who were approached by Commissioner Quesada regarding this
problem. She
expressed it correctly that there appears to have been no constitutional
mandate for the grant of security of tenure to government employees who
are still
on temporary or casual status. I answered her that it would be best left to
ordinary legislation with the corresponding constitutional mandate for that
purpose. She mentioned the Labor Code and the six-month period therein for
private workers. But then, perhaps, three months, six months, or even one
year
under a merit system would not be encompassed by that provision. There
may be some government workers who, by reason of meritorious conduct
and
performance, could possibly be made permanent employees after a
continued service of merely three months, but if there is a six-month period
in the
Constitution, then the Legislature would not be that flexible. So, instead of
putting a constitutional provision limiting the period strictly to six
months, and give the Legislature a little more room for making adjustments
on the different contingencies and different classifications, I am proposing a
substitute amendment to Commissioner Quesadas on Section 1 (3), line 9,
so that the paragraph reads: No member of the Civil Service shall be
removed,
suspended, or otherwise disciplined except for cause AND SHALL ENJOY
SECURITY OF TENURE AS provided by law.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, the said paragraph has already been
amended by Commissioner Padilla.
MR. REGALADO: Portion of Commissioner Padillas amendment reads: . . .
except for cause provided by law. I propose to amend it to read: otherwise
disciplined except for cause AND SHALL ENJOY SECURITY OF TENURE AS
provided by law. This amendment sets forth a constitutional mandate, but
leaving it to
ordinary legislation to make the corresponding adjustments.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, but then the employee concerned here is not yet a
member of the civil service because the status of his appointment is
casual. So, what
we are proposing is for temporary workers to enjoy the right of becoming
permanent and be called a civil servant.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): So the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Regalado is not accepted?
MS. QUESADA: It does not really capture the spirit or the intention of my
proposal.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I think the issue has been sufficiently discussed.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask for just a minute because I think I
have a very important question to raise before this matter is submitted to a
vote. I would like to request Commissioner Quesada to answer a question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Ople is given one
minute.
MR. OPLE: The Commissioner, having worked for the government once,
realizes that the security of employment of thousands of casuals in the
government is
largely dependent on fluctuating budgetary outlays of different agencies. In
other words, we saw what happened recently when many thousands of
temporary
employees were laid off because there was no money to support their
continuation in office. The Commissioner, of course, will concede that the
security of
employment of casuals in the government is sometimes a function of policy;
many other times it really depends on fluctuations of budgets.
Therefore, will the Commissioner consider an amendment to her
amendment, which merely reads as follows: TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES OF THE
GOVERNMENT SHALL ENJOY
SECURITY OF TENURE AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, which means a
mandate to the Legislature to determine the terms and conditions of
employment of these
government casuals and to endeavor to give them security of tenure
consistent with the financial configuration of the government at any given
time. Will
Commissioner Quesada welcome that reformulation?
MS. QUESADA: I accept.
MR. OPLE: Yes; so if the Chair is ready, then as reformulated the following is
the amendment that will be put to a vote: TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES OF THE
GOVERNMENT SHALL ENJOY SECURITY OF TENURE AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY
LAW.
MS. QUESADA: Could the Commissioner include, however, AFTER HAVING
RENDERED A NUMBER OF MONTHS?
MR. OPLE: The law will take care of that and it will provide more than that.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MS. QUESADA: May I request a one-minute suspension of the session.
MR. DAVIDE: May I request two minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is suspended for two
minutes.
It was 6:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:40 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is resumed.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I seek for the recognition of
Commissioner Quesada for the modified amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: We are happy to report to the Chair the final formulation of an
accepted amendment to read: TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES OF THE
GOVERNMENT SHALL ENJOY
THE PROTECTION OF LAW. TUESDAY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. FOZ: The Committee accepts.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Committee has accepted the new
amendment.
Is there any objection?
MR. DAVIDE: Commissioner Maambong seeks to be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is just a point of information. I
was a member of the Committee on Civil Service of the last Regular
Batasang
Pambansa, and I would like to inform the body that before we were dissolved
we were precisely working on that kind of formulation to give permanent
status
to temporary employees of the government. So I favor that provision in the
Constitution. The future Batasang Pambansa, at least, will be made aware
that
there is really that intent of giving protection to temporary employees.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, there are still amendments to Section 2.
May I propose the recognition of the following Commissioners in the order
they
are named: Commissioners de los Reyes, Regalado, Aquino and de Castro.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will they speak on the amendments?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, on amendments to Section 2.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): There is a pending amendment now.
MR. DAVIDE: I thought it was approved already.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): No, Commissioner de Castro has just
stood up. May the Chair inquire from Commissioner de Castro if he is
objecting to
the amendment?
MR. DE CASTRO: I object to the amendment. There are three kinds of
appointments in the Civil Service Commission: (1) a permanent appointment
which is
usually extended when the employee has appropriate civil service eligibility
for the position he is holding; (2) a provisional appointment when the civil
service eligibility of the employee is not appropriate for the position he is
holding. An employee with a provisional appointment is usually given six
months which is renewable for another six months unless he acquires the
appropriate civil service eligibility for his position; and (3) a temporary
appointment is when the employee has no eligibility whatsoever. Even if we
put the phrase as provided for by law, this employee who has no eligibility
whatsoever should take the Civil Service Commissions examination any time
it will be given so that he can acquire the appropriate civil service
eligibility.
I object to the amendment because the whole gamut of the merit system of
the Civil Service Commission will be destroyed, if we accept and give
security of
tenure to temporary employees.
Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: I move for a vote on the amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, the proposed amendment, as I heard it,
reads: TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES SHALL ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW. I
do not know
what protection of the law actually exists for these temporary employees.
Once an employee is temporary or casual, he has no permanent status;
hence, he
has no right to security of tenure. I wonder what is meant by SHALL ENJOY
THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW. I think it should be worded differently
because, as
I see it, there is no protection to temporary employees who have rendered
service for six months or more, and that is the complaint of the proponent.
But
now we are saying that temporary employees shall enjoy the protection of
the law. There is absence of protection.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair believes this matter has
been thoroughly discussed. Are we ready to vote or will Commissioner
Quesada
entertain amendments or clarifications?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
I was also thinking about that because these workers with temporary
appointments, under the present law, can be dismissed with or without
cause. However,
the provisional appointee cannot be dismissed except for cause. That is the
situation.
Commissioner Padilla commented on what protection the law can give
temporary employees under the present amendment. Maybe the
amendment should sound
something like this: TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES SHALL BE ACCORDED
PERMANENT STATUS AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. FOZ: We would like to be clear about the amendment to the amendment
as proposed by Commissioner Natividad.
MR. NATIVIDAD: We are not taking it now as six months. The help that we
want to extend to temporary employees is already clear in this amendment.
We want
them to be permanent after a period of time which is to be set by law.
MR. FOZ: So how will the statement now read?
MR. NATIVIDAD: It should read: TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES SHALL BE
ACCORDED PERMANENT STATUS AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME AS PROVIDED BY
LAW.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas). Yes, Commissioner Foz is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. FOZ: I would like to ask for a suspension of the session.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is suspended.
It was 6:50 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:56 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is resumed.
MR. DAVIDE: May I request for the recognition again of Commissioner
Quesada for the final modified amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to withdraw all amendments introduced on the
floor and submit the following final provisions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): All amendments have been withdrawn.
MS. QUESADA: The final amendment should read: TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
OF THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE GIVEN SUCH PROTECTION AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. FOZ: The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Committee has accepted the
amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes, Commissioner Bengzon is
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I just want to seek clarification on the actual meaning of the
amended provision. There are two facets here: protection as a laborer or
protection as a civil servant. I ask because if a temporary employee has no
civil service eligibility and his position ripens into permanent without a
civil service eligibility, it is the same thing; we will wreck the whole civil
service merit system.
MR. FOZ: If I may be allowed to respond, that is a question that should be
addressed to the Legislature.
MR. BENGZON: No, that is an interpretation of that provision. We would like
to know the sense of the proponent. If the intention in that amendment is to
make that temporary appointment ripen into permanency without the
employee becoming a civil service eligible, it is the same thing as wrecking
the whole
civil service merit system.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Quesada explain?
MS. QUESADA: The final proposal is going to set the opening for legislation
that will provide protection to casual and temporary employees who are not
enjoying any such protection.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Since the Committee has some suggestions as to the framing
of that provision, may we say that it is our understanding that it is possible
for
the law under that provision to impose certain conditions for the conversion
into permanent status.
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I ask the honorable Commissioner Quesada a question?
MS. QUESADA: Willingly.
MR. DE CASTRO: What protection do we expect from the law when we say
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE GIVEN SUCH
PROTECTION AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW.
MS. QUESADA: We will leave that to the Legislature.
MR. DE CASTRO: Is it a protection to be permanent in his position or what?
MS. QUESADA: As may be provided by law, it is the right to security of
tenure.
MR. DE CASTRO: This will still lead to the wrecking of the whole merit system
in the Civil Service Commission.
Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: The issue is now ready for a vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): All those in favor of the proposed
amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
All those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 25 votes in favor and 5 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: I seek recognition of Commissioner Romulo for a parliamentary
inquiry on Section 1.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: I beg the indulgence of the Committee. I was reading the
wrong provision.
I refer to Section 1, subparagraph 1 which reads:
The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and
agencies of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
My query: Is Philippine Airlines covered by this provision?
MR. FOZ: Will the Commissioner please state his previous question?
MR. ROMULO: The phrase on line 4 of Section 1, subparagraph 1, under the
Civil Service Commission, says. including government-owned or controlled
corporations. Does that include a corporation, like the Philippine Airlines
which is government-owned or controlled?
MR. FOZ: I would like to throw a question to the Commissioner. Is the
Philippine Airlines controlled by the government in the sense that the
majority of
stocks are owned by the government?
MR. ROMULO: It is owned by the GSIS. So, this is what we might call a tertiary
corporation. The GSIS is owned by the government. Would this be covered
because the provision says including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
MR. FOZ: The Philippine Airlines was established as a private corporation.
Later on, the government, through the GSIS, acquired the controlling stocks.
Is
that not the correct situation?
MR. ROMULO: That is true as Commissioner Ople is about to explain. There
was apparently a Supreme Court decision that destroyed that distinction
between a
government-owned corporation created under the Corporation Law and a
government-owned corporation created by its own charter.
MR. FOZ: Yes, we recall the Supreme Court decision in the case of NHA vs.
Juco to the effect that all government corporations irrespective of the
manner of
creation, whether by special charter or by the private Corporation Law, are
deemed to be covered by the civil service because of the wide-embracing
definition made in this section of the existing 1973 Constitution. But we
recall the response to the question of Commissioner Ople that our
intendment in
this provision is just to give a general description of the civil service. We are
not here to make any declaration as to whether employees of
government-owned or controlled corporations are barred from the operation
of laws, such as the Labor Code of the Philippines.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: May I be recognized, Mr. Presiding Officer, since my name has
been mentioned by both sides.
MR. ROMULO: I yield part of my time.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: In connection with the coverage of the Civil Service Law in Section
1 (1), may I volunteer some information that may be helpful both to the
interpellator and to the Committee. Following the proclamation of martial law
on September 21, 1972, this issue of the coverage of the Labor Code of the
Philippines and of the Civil Service Law almost immediately arose. I am, in
particular, referring to the period following the coming into force and effect
of the Constitution of 1973, where the Article on the Civil Service was
supposed to take immediate force and effect. In the case of LUZTEVECO,
there was a
strike at the time. This was a government-controlled and government-owned
corporation. I think it was owned by the PNOC with just the minuscule private
shares left. So, the Secretary of Justice at that time, Secretary Abad Santos,
and myself sat down, and the result of that meeting was an opinion of the
Secretary of Justice which became binding immediately on the
government that government corporations with original charters, such as
the GSIS, were
covered by the Civil Service Law and corporations spun off from the GSIS,
which we called second-generation corporations functioning as private
subsidiaries, were covered by the Labor Code. Samples of such secondgeneration corporations were the Philippine Airlines, the Manila Hotel and the
Hyatt.
And that demarcation worked very well. In fact, all of these companies I have
mentioned as examples, except for the Manila Hotel, had collective
bargaining
agreements. In the Philippine Airlines, there were, in fact, three collective
bargaining agreements; one, for the ground people or the PALIA; one, for the
flight attendants or the PASAC; and one for the pilots of the ALPAC. How then
could a corporation like that be covered by the Civil Service Law? But, as
the Chairman of the Committee pointed out, the Supreme Court decision in
the case of NHA vs. Juco unrobed the whole thing. Accordingly, the Philippine
Airlines, the Manila Hotel and the Hyatt are now considered under that
decision covered by the Civil Service Law. I also recall that in the emergency
meeting of the Cabinet convened for this purpose at the initiative of the
Chairman of the Reorganization Commission, Armand Fabella, they agreed to
allow
the CBAs to lapse before applying the full force and effect of the Supreme
Court decision. So, we were in that awkward situation when the new
government
took over. I can agree with Commissioner Romulo when he said that this is a
problem which I am not exactly sure we should address in the deliberations
on
the Civil Service Law or whether we should be content with what the
Chairman said that Section 1 (1) of the Article on the Civil Service is just a
general description of the coverage of the Civil Service and no more.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, for the moment, I would be satisfied if the
Committee puts on record that it is not their intent by this provision and
the phrase including government-owned or controlled corporations to
cover such companies as the Philippine Airlines.
MR. FOZ: Personally, that is my view. As a matter of fact, when this draft was
made, my proposal was really to eliminate, to drop from the provision, the
phrase including government-owned or controlled corporations.
MR. ROMULO: Would the Committee indicate that that is the intent of this
provision?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not think the Committee can make
such a statement in the face of an absolute exclusion of government-owned
or
controlled corporations. However, this does not preclude the Civil Service
Law to prescribe different rules and procedures, including emoluments for
employees of proprietary corporations, taking into consideration the nature
of their operations. So, it is a general coverage but it does not preclude a
distinction of the rules between the two types of enterprises.
MR. FOZ: In other words, it is something that should be left to the legislature
to decide. As I said before, this is just a general description and we are
not making any declaration whatsoever.
MR. MONSOD: Perhaps if Commissioner Romulo would like a definitive
understanding of the coverage and the Gentleman wants to exclude
government-owned or
controlled corporations like Philippine Airlines, then the recourse is to offer
an amendment as to the coverage, if the Commissioner does not accept the
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. ROMULO: I have an anterior amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: On page 2, line 5, I suggest the following amendment after
corporations: Add a comma(,) and the phrase EXCEPT THOSE EXERCISING
PROPRIETARY
FUNCTIONS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. MONSOD: May we have a suspension of the session?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is suspended.
It was 7:16 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 7:21 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is resumed.
Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am amending my original proposed
amendment to now read as follows: including government-owned or
controlled
corporations WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS. The purpose of this amendment is
to indicate that government corporations such as the GSIS and SSS, which
have
original charters, fall within the ambit of the civil service. However,
corporations which are subsidiaries of these chartered agencies such as the
Philippine Airlines, Manila Hotel and Hyatt are excluded from the coverage of
the civil service.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. FOZ: Just one question, Mr. Presiding Officer. By the term original
charters, what exactly do we mean?
MS. AQUINO: So, it is clear that the intent is to provide for a self-perpetuating
commission that is likewise insulated from the influence of the President
and the Executive. The way the provision was designed would seem to
presume that the term of the President is six years. What if the Commission
decides on
a four-year term? In which case, with a four-year term for the President, the
President will be appointing all of the three commissioners. Would this be
flexible to accommodate changes in case we decide on a four-year term for
the President?
MR. FOZ: What is the Gentlewomans proposal?
MS. AQUINO: I would propose for an alternative provision subject to whatever
is the decision of the body on the term of the President, if we are to conform
with the desired objective in the staggering of appointment.
MR. MONSOD: We have considered that possibility and realized that in order
to get beyond the possible eight years of the President elect, then the term
must be nine years or longer. On the other hand, we also realize that if a
President has a fresh mandate from the people after four years, the
intendment
of the people is to indirectly give the President the right to appoint the
officers for positions vacant during the period. However, having said that, if
the Executive does provide a different term than what we had assumed, we
are open to a reconsideration and discussion at the time in order to see if we
can
synchronize these things better.
MS. AQUINO: Which means in the alternative, it might mean a tenure of nine,
six and three years, respectively.
MR. MONSOD: May we reserve our discussions when the occasion arises, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you.
In the same paragraph, I would propose an amendment by addition on page
2, line 31. Between the period(.) after the word predecessor and the
sentence
which begins with In no case, insert THE APPOINTEE SHALL IN NO CASE
SERVE AN AGGREGATE PERIOD OF MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS. I was thinking
that this may
approximate the situation wherein a commissioner is first appointed as an
ordinary commissioner and later on appointed as chairman. I am willing to
withdraw that amendment if there is representation on the part of the
Committee that this provision contemplates that kind of situation and that
there is
an implicit intention to prohibit a term that in the aggregate will exceed more
than seven years. If that is the intention, I am willing to withdraw my
amendment.
MR. MONSOD: If the Gentleman will read the whole Article, she will notice
that there is no reappointment of any kind and, therefore, as a whole there is
no
way that somebody can serve for more than seven years. The purpose of the
last sentence is to make sure that this does not happen by including in the
appointment both temporary and acting capacities.
MS. AQUINO: Yes. Reappointment is fine; that is accounted for and
appointment of a temporary or acting capacity is also accounted for. But I
was thinking
of a situation wherein a commissioner is upgraded to a position of chairman.
But if this provision is intended to cover that kind of situation, then I am
willing to withdraw my amendment.
MR. MONSOD: It is covered.
MR. FOZ: There is a provision on line 29 precisely to cover that situation. It
states: Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion
of the term of the predecessor. In other words, if there is upgrading of
position from commissioner to chairman, the appointee can only serve the
unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor.
MS. AQUINO: But we have to be very specific about it; the provision does not
still account for that kind of a situation because, in effect, it might even
shorten the term because he serves only the unexpired portion of the vacant
position.
MR. FOZ: He takes it at his own risk. He knows that he will only have to serve
the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor.
MS. AQUINO: Regardless of that, my question is: Will this provision apply
likewise to that kind of a situation? In other words, I am only asking for an
assurance that the safety valve applies to this situation.
MR. FOZ: The provision does take care of that situation.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move for the recognition of Commissioner
de los Reyes for an amendment on Section 2.
provision will read: No officer of the Armed Forces in the active service shall,
at any time, be appointed or designated in ANY capacity to a civilian
position in the Government.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will the proponent consider an amendment to his amendment?
MR. REGALADO: Gladly.
MR. OPLE: I think this is a good provision. It responds to some real problems
we are familiar with. There must be no leeway for members of the armed
forces
to preempt service opportunities in the civilian government from the civil
servants in the government. However, we are writing a constitution not only
for
now but for the future, and we live in a volatile political era. It may be
necessary for the President of the Philippines on occasion and I am not
speaking of a period of emergency formally declared as such but of
vicissitudes in our national lives to cause the designation on a temporary
basis of,
let us say, some officers of the armed forces with exceptional technical skills
to positions in the government.
Therefore, to allow for such contingencies, will the proponent and the
Committee agree to the addition of a clause which states EXCEPT AS MAY BE
DIRECTED
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES? At that level, it is supremely difficult
to get a designation. But the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the
armed forces and the point is that he/she will use this power only when in
his/her view it is necessary for public interest. What we want to prevent are,
let us say, political interventions such as Ministers and Deputy Ministers
asking the Minister of National Defense to detail certain officers to the
Bureau
of Customs, to the Philippine Coconut Authority or to the Ministry of Public
Works and Highways. But should the President require the temporary
presence of
certain officers with exceptional technical skills in government service, I do
not think that that should be prescribed in advance by this Constitution.
That is why I have proposed that amendment to the amendment of
Commissioner Regalado.
MR. REGALADO: Before I comment on that proposed amendment to the
amendment, could Commissioner Ople give us by way of illustration the
technical
requirements which can be filled only by military officers and not by civilians
otherwise equally prepared?
MR. OPLE: Let me begin with a foreign example, and then I will cull from local
examples.
In the United States, it is very rare that an officer gets extension beyond his
retirement. But once in 50 years, the President of the United States finds
it necessary to extend such an officer because of strategic requirements of
that country, such as Admiral Rickover whose knowledge and skills in
submarine
technology were considered so indispensable that they made an exception of
him. I am not saying that this situation will repeat itself in the Philippines,
but let us say that there are in the Armed Forces of the Philippines brilliant
engineers who may be required in an emergency and because of the
relationship between the civilian and the military, it may be necessary to
designate them temporarily in the Ministry of Public Works in order to
complete
a strategic construction necessary to national security.
Will we prevent the President from designating such officers for that
purpose?
MR. REGALADO: Under such an extreme situation, which the Gentleman
himself agrees is a very rare and isolated contingency, would it not be within
the power
of the President to assign these military officers with such indispensable
capabilities to work under the command of a civilian authority?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: By making them head in the office by themselves.
MR. OPLE: Without the need of a designation.
MR. REGALADO: They can be assigned there under a civilian authority and
the military could always be called upon to assist without being designated
to that
civilian office or position.
MR. OPLE: Yes, for me this is a bearable loss of presidential prerogatives,
especially since I represent an opposition to the incumbent President, at
least
outside the Constitutional Commission. But I do care about the future. I said
that we live in a volatile era, and if the Committee, however, is insistent
on denying this flexibility to the President and future presidents, I will not
press my amendment.
MR. FOZ: The Committee has accepted the amendment of Commissioner
Regalado.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): How about the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Ople?
MR. FOZ: He has withdrawn it.
MR. REGALADO: His amendment was withdrawn, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): So the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Regalado on Sections 4 and 6 is accepted by the Committee.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: There is a proposed amendment on Sections 6 and 7 by
Commissioner Aquino. I pray for her recognition.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I would like to introduce an
amendment on Section 7, line 19, page 3.
MR. FOZ: Before the Commissioner proceeds, if I may be allowed, I
remember that this Section 7 is already included in the General Provisions
approved by
the Committee on General Provisions, so I would see no need to have this
amended.
MS. AQUINO: Unless the Gentlemans idea is just to transfer this to the
General Provisions because the way the General Provisions was approved in
that
Committee, there is a substantial difference.
MR. FOZ: We would like to request the Chairman of the Committee on
General Provisions to enlighten us on this matter.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, for the information of the body, it is
indeed true as stated by Commissioner Foz that there is a parallel provision
of
Section 7 in the General Provisions with slight difference. I would like to read
the exact configuration of this provision as the Committee on General
Provisions has approved it. It reads:
No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional,
double or indirect compensation, except pensions or gratuities, unless
specifically authorized by law, nor accept, without the consent of the
National Assembly, any present, emolument, office or title of any kind from
any
foreign state.
The only correction or amendment was by Commissioner Aquino, the
deletion of the phrase unless specifically authorized by law. Considering
the statement
of Commissioner Foz that we might have to transfer this provision to the
General Provisions, our job then as far as this Committee is concerned will be
much simpler. We do not have to talk about it as of this moment.
MR. FOZ: We would like to defer to the Committee on General Provisions.
MR. MAAMBONG: All right. In that case, I understand that there was already a
Section 8 by Commissioner Ople. That Section 8 would probably become
Section 7
now.
MR. FOZ: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: If there are no other amendments, we can go back to Section 3
on the Aquino amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Anterior amendment. I missed this Section 6. A
clarificatory question to the Committee.
On Section 6, line 13, it is stated: No officer of the Armed Forces. . .
Is there any reason why we did not include member or personnel? Would the
Gentleman accept an amendment like no personnel or no member of the
Armed
Forces?
MR. FOZ: What is the difference? What is the amendment the Commissioner
is proposing?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Change officer to MEMBER such that it will read: No
MEMBER of the Armed Forces in the active service.
MR. FOZ: What is the difference?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Some are not officers; they may be sergeants or
noncommissioned officers or enlisted men.
MR. FOZ: We would be amenable to such an amendment.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
MR. FOZ: What is the amendment? Will the Commissioner state the
amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will the Commissioner please restate
her amendment?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No MEMBER of the Armed Forces in the active
service.
MR. FOZ: We accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: We are awaiting the proposed amendment to Section 3. In the
meantime, this Representation would propose some perfecting amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: We will avail of the time.
On page 2, line 9, Section 1 (3), substitute the word member with OFFICER
OR EMPLOYEE to be consistent with paragraph 4 of the same section. So, the
provision will read: No OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE of the Civil Service shall be
removed . . .
MR. FOZ: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE. On line 17, Section 2 (1), substitute the word are between
who and natural-born with the words SHALL BE for symmetry with the
other
provisions.
MR. FOZ: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 19, substitute the figure 35 with THIRTY-FIVE.
MR. FOZ: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the pro- posed amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On the same line, after the comma(,) following the word age,
insert the following words: HOLDERS OF A COLLEGE DEGREE.
MR. FOZ: In other words, the Gentleman is reverting to the . . .
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because as worded now, for as long as one has some
proven capacity for public administration, he can be a commissioner. He
does not have
to be a college graduate. So, we have to upgrade the qualification.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: That is right. One does not have to be a college graduate as
long as he has the capacity for public administration. That is the intendment
of
the Committee.
MR. DAVIDE: That would be a very specific expertise in public administration.
REV. RIGOS: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: Whereas if one is a college degree holder, his orientation is
much broader, and then he still has the qualification of having expertise in
public administration .
REV. RIGOS: Probably, in the majority of cases that will be true, but not
always. There must be some instances in which a person does not possess a
college
diploma, yet with some proven capacity for public administration.
MR. DAVIDE: My main objective here is to at least put on the same category
the qualifications of members of the commission because the public may not
have
due regard for a commission with a high school graduate commissioner,
although he may have some special training in public administration. We
already have
so many college degree holders, and it would be an insult to the dignity of
the commission if he is not a college degree holder.
REV. RIGOS: The appointing power probably will consider that. And if the
choice is between one who has a college degree and one who does not have
the
degree but with a capacity for public administration, probably he or she will
prefer the one without a college degree.
MR. DAVIDE: But it would be best if we require him to be with proven
capacity in public administration: at least he must also be a college degree
holder.
I ask for a vote. I would only like to emphasize in the voting that, in effect,
we might be degrading the sanctity of a constitutional commission.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Those in favor of the amendment,
please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.
Those against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
The results show 12 votes in favor and 14 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. DAVIDE: I propose another perfecting amendment on line 29, Section 2
(2). It consists in the deletion of the comma(,) after years and the words
without reappointment.
MR. FOZ: In other words, the Gentleman is going to allow reappointment in
this case.
MR. DAVIDE: No, because on line 25 there is already the phrase without
reappointment.
MR. FOZ: Yes, but in the past, that was a source of controversy. That was one
of the points raised in one of the controversies in the Supreme Court.
MR. DAVIDE: There would be no area of controversy because it is very clear:
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President for
a term of seven years without reappointment.
So, it would even apply to the first set of three commissioners.
MR. FOZ: But there is the argument made in the concurring opinion of Justice
Angelo Bautista in the case of Vizcarra vs. Miraflor, to the effect that the
prohibition on reappointment applies only when the term or the tenure is for
seven years. But in cases where the appointee serves only for less than
seven
years, he would be entitled to reappointment. Unless we put the qualifying
words without reappointment in the case of those appointed, then it is
possible that an interpretation could be made later on that in their case, they
can still be reappointed to serve for a total of seven years.
Precisely, we are foreclosing that possibility by making it very clear that even
in the case of those first appointed under this Constitution, no
reappointment can be had.
MR. DAVIDE: Can it not be done by a mere interpretation because it would
really appear to be repetitious? The wording itself on the first set of
commissioners would clearly indicate that their term is really for seven
years, but their tenure is staggered. So, we have to distinguish between term
and
tenure because the general term is really seven years. But of the first three
to be appointed, the tenure of one is seven; the tenure of the second is
five; and the tenure of the third is three. But technically, the term for which
they are appointed is seven years.
MR. FOZ: The Committee regrets to say that we cannot accept the
amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: May I submit it to a vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Those in favor of the amendment,
please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
The results show 2 votes in favor and 21 against the amendment is lost.
MR. DAVIDE: On Section 4, page 3, line 8, I propose for the substitution of the
word term with TENURE.
MR. FOZ: The effect of the proposed amendment is to make possible for one
to resign from his position.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, we should allow that prerogative.
MR. FOZ: Resign from his position to accept an executive position.
MR. DAVIDE: Besides, it may turn out in a given case that because of, say,
incapacity, he may leave the service, but if he is prohibited from being
appointed within the term for which he was elected, we may be depriving the
government of the needed expertise of an individual.
MR. FOZ: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am not proposing an amendment to Section 4, but in
order that there will be no two similar provisions in the Constitution, I just
want to
put on notice that the Committee on General Provisions has an equivalent
provision, which has already been approved and which reads:
No elective or appointive public officer or employee should hold any office or
employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, on line 16, Section 6, after Government,
insert a comma(,) and the following: INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR
CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS.
MR. FOZ: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, except that on line 40 of page 2 and
line 1 of the subsequent page, it was only subjected to a little modification.
MR. REGALADO: May we, therefore, make it of record that the phrase . . .
promulgate and enforce policies on personnel actions, classify positions,
prescribe conditions of employment except as to compensation and other
monetary benefits which shall be provided by law is understood to be
subsumed under
and included in the concept of a central personnel agency.
MS. AQUINO: I would have no objection to that.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes, Commissioner Bengzon is
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: This is just for clarification.
The Commissioners amendment includes the phrase IT SHALL
STRENGTHEN THE MERIT AND REWARD SYSTEM. Does the Gentlewoman not
contemplate that the merit and
reward system under this proposals is weakened by the accepted
amendment of Commissioner Quesada?
MS. AQUINO: I do not believe so; it is not weakened.
MR. BENGZON: Stated otherwise, the entire Article on the Civil Service
Commission by the adoption of this proposal is anchored on the merit and
reward
system. Is that correct?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Continuing further, INTEGRATE ALL HUMAN RESOURCES, is
it a typographical error that no comma (,) was placed after RESOURCES?
MS. AQUINO: No, it is human resources development program, as one
integral concept.
MR. BENGZON: A human resources development program, that is just one
concept?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, it is a concept.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
MR. FOZ: With all the clarifications, inclusions and intentions of the proposal
or amendment including the enumeration of the functions and powers in the
draft, the Committee accepts the amendment of Commissioner Aquino.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes, Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will Commissioner Aquino clarify the phrase
INTEGRATE HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR ALL LEVELS
AND RANKS? Human resources
development programs would mean, of course, professional or training
programs. Are these also within the civil service?
MS. AQUINO: The point is this: The Civil Service Commission is authorized by
law to initiate development programs. The concept of integration is that it
will have to go beyond the programs that the Commission has initiated in
coordination with the other programs pertinent to their function.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: That is exactly my question because the Commission
has its own Civil Service Academy but coordinates with other human
resource
development programs. So, I propose to change the word INTEGRATE with
COORDINATE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does Commissioner Aquino say?
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, it is not just a matter of words.
MR. FOZ: Since the Committee has always accepted the amendment, it is for
the Committee now to respond.
MS. AQUINO: Coordination and integration are different concepts.
MR. FOZ: We would insist on the word INTEGRATE because coordinate is
a weaker word.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Shall we vote on the amendment?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, I withdraw the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What is the pleasure of the VicePresident?
MR. PADILLA: I was trying to simplify, but the Chairman of the Committee
objects to simplification and insists on the phrase INTEGRATE ALL HUMAN
RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR ALL LEVELS AND RANKS, AND
INSTITUTIONALIZE A MANAGEMENT CLIMATE. To me, these are all good
words but very hard to understand or
implement.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair believes this matter has
been sufficiently discussed.
MR. REGALADO: May we ask Commissioner Aquino to please read the whole
thing before we vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Aquino read the
proposed amendment?
MS. AQUINO: The section, as amended, would now read: THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION AS THE CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT,
SHALL ESTABLISH A
CAREER SERVICE AND ADOPT MEASURES TO PROMOTE THE MORALE,
EFFICIENCY, INTEGRITY, RESPONSIVENESS, PROGRESSIVENESS, AND
COURTESY IN THE CIVIL SERVICE. IT
SHALL STRENGTHEN THE MERIT AND REWARD SYSTEM, INTEGRATE ALL
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR ALL LEVELS AND
RANKS, AND INSTITUTIONALIZE A
MANAGEMENT CLIMATE CONDUCIVE TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Does the Committee accept the
amendment?
MR. FOZ: The amendment is accepted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: There is one final proposed amendment. I seek the recognition
of Commissioner de los Reyes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Before I propose my amendment, I would like to ask the
Committee why it did not include among its proposals Section 6, Article XII of
the
1973 Constitution which reads:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I understand Commissioner Lerum objects
to that amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The ruling has been reconsidered.
MR. LERUM: With the permission of the Chair, I am objecting to that
amendment because that has been used for depriving government workers
of their right to
organize and to ask for concessions. I object to that amendment.
MR. FOZ: On the other hand, I think we have accepted the Ople amendment
that government employees-workers have the right to organize.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Lerum insist on his
objection?
MR. LERUM: I withdraw my objection after the explanation of the
Commissioner.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Commissioner de los Reyes still has another last amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, this will follow the Ople amendment. In the provision
on constitutional commissions, I propose to reproduce Section 6, Article XV
on
General Provisions of the 1973 Constitution. I think this is the proper place to
put it. It states: NO SALARY OR ANY FORM OF EMOLUMENT OF ANY PUBLIC
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, SHALL BE
EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request Commissioner de los Reyes
to defer consideration of that amendment because I understand there is a
report
of another committee, I believe it is the Committee on General Provisions.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The request is granted, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: There are no more registered proponents for any amendment.
May I request from the Committee, if it would now want a voting on Second
Reading on
the Article on Common Provisions and on the Article on the Civil Service
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Proposed Resolution No. 523 is adopted in toto.
MR. BENGZON: The body is lying in state at the Arlington Funeral Homes on
Araneta Avenue, and I think the funeral is on Friday.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move to close the period of sponsorship
and debate on the Commission on Audit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move to adjourn until nine-thirty
tomorrow morning to consider the amendments on the Commission on Audit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in
the
morning.
It was 8:34 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 31
Wednesday, July 16, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:33 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Napoleon G. Rama.
Abubakar
Present *
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present *
Natividad
Present
Aquino
Present
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present
Ople
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Padilla
Present
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present
Bernas
Present
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Present
Brocka
Present *
Reyes de los
Present
Calderon
Present
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Present *
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Foz
Present
Suarez
Present *
Garcia
Present *
Sumulong
Present
Gascon
Present
Tadeo
Present *
Guingona
Present
Tan
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Letter from Campaign for a Sovereign Philippines signed by Ms. Ma. Socorro
I. Diokno, Ms. Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Messrs. Butch Abad and Efren C.
Moncupa,
and Rev. Elmo Gideon Manapat, calling for a ban from Philippine soil of all
military bases and nuclear weapons and power plants.
(Communication No. 208 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Jose Mari C. Gonzales, Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of
Broadcasts, Ministry of Information, proposing the inclusion of a provision on
the
right to bear arms.
(Communication No. 209 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and
Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Ms. Delia Rarela-Barcelona for the Association for Non-Traditional
Education. recommending the consideration of the need for alternative
learning systems, along the lines of non-traditional education.
(Communication No. 210 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from TransProResources Corporation signed by Rene S. Santiago
proposing a general provision for a balanced budget.
(Communication No. 211 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from General Fidel V. Ramos, Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the
Philippines, submitting the NAFP position on the Constitution.
(Communication No. 212 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Ms. Lily A. Rubio of the Ministry of Information, NCR, endorsing a
proposal of Mr. Federico R. Co of Anahaw Street, Project 7, Quezon City, for
the grant of old age pension to 70 years old and above citizens.
Instead,
we concentrate on the word audit on line 22 as covering all these entities. I
would like also to delete lines 34 to 36 which read: which are required by
law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of
subsidy or equity, because that is very restrictive. Suppose there is no such
requirement but there is a public fund invested in such nongovernmental
entities, then these may not be required to submit to such audit. It is
understood
that whether the entities are governmental or nongovernmental, if public
funds are involved the Commission on Audit should not be deprived the right
as
well as the power to audit those funds Before I formally present my
amendment, may I know the sentiments of the members of the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Maybe we should explain why the Committee made an
exception on these institutions and made them on a postaudit basis, because
normally COA
audit is both on preaudit and postaudit basis. This decision was really very
difficult on the part of the Committee, for it involved discussions, as well
as a very lengthy testimony by the Commission on Audit. What we are trying
to achieve here is some sort of balance.
There are certain companies or institutions within the government itself
which by the nature of their functions would be hampered by preaudit
procedures.
The question now is: Would limiting the COA to postaudit procedures not
allow abuses on the part of these institutions?
The situation is this: There is always a trade-off on issues like this; and one of
the questions we posed to the Commission on Audit was this: Suppose a
P10-billion government corporation, let us say National Steel, where the
board of directors is composed of people both from the public and private
sectors,
people of integrity and experience, and so on, decides to purchase a certain
equipment worth, say, P2 million through public bidding, what is the role of
the COA? Their answer was: In this case, we can inquire not only whether
the expenditures were being made for the purpose, but also into the merits
of
the decision itself of the board of directors.
So what we are trying to avoid is a situation where with the presence of
preaudit procedures we may have a little dictator above the board of
directors of
a company whose normal operations require more than the P500,000 ceiling
of the COA which is exempt from preaudit according to present COA rules.
by the
rules and regulations of the Commission on Audit under Section 2 (2) of the
committee report?
MR. MONSOD: It is possible to do that. As a matter of fact, certain
representations have been made. But I have some personal experience on
this. What the
COA decided in the case of companies called behest companies, private
companies taken over by government, was to exempt such companies from
preaudit for
two years.
In other words, it is a time relief, rather than addressing itself to the problem
of impairing the normal operations of the company. So, we felt, and I
believe, that we have some understanding with the Commission on Audit on
this, that as long as the Commission on Audit were given special powers to
look
into the operations of a company to correct the deficiency and to initiate
temporary measures, including preaudit, this could be a good compromise.
MR. NOLLEDO: One last question, because I have arranged with
Commissioner Guingona that he will present the amendment. Section 2 (1)
on lines 34 to 36
reads:
. . . which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such
audit as a condition of subsidy or equity.
Suppose there is no law requiring such kind of audit or the granting
institution fails to lay down the condition contemplated in this statement, will
the
government funds invested in these nongovernmental entities be exempt
from audit?
MR. MONSOD: May I answer that in this manner. We feel that this puts-the
responsibility on the granting institution or any government financial
institution
to put appropriate conditions for the granting of such subsidy or equity. Let
me give the Commissioner an example: The COA auditors were asked in our
hearing what exactly this right entailed. We gave an example wherein the
Philippine National Bank or the Development Bank of the Philippines put a
10-percent equity in Capitol Development Bank which, in turn, invested a 10percent equity in a certain company. We asked what right the COA had with
respect to the company, since that is already a grandfather equity
relationship, an equity relationship by the nature of an equity investment
that we do
not know exactly where the money is. It is fungible. We put money into a
company and very seldom is there a specific destination of funds. The COA
said it
would look into the expenditure of funds. The COA said it would look into the
expenditure of the government money, but there is no way it could because
it
is an equity investment. We asked the COA what they would do, if there was
no specific destination of funds, and its representatives said they would look
into the entire operations of the company which involved the 10-percent
investment. By COA rules it can now go into each and every function and
operation
of that company. We are afraid that in allowing each and every peso of the
government in a company, we effectively discourage all kinds of business
operations. In any case, the PNB or the DBP has its own auditors, and the
Central Bank has a right to investigate and review the operations of financial
institutions and their portfolio. Not only that, COA, an automatic audit, would
be a stifling environment within which business might not flourish or
operate.
So we have to be careful in trying to correct the abuses of the past because
we could create new forms of abuses or opportunities for abuse. We cannot
swing from one extreme to the other. And if the situation was very bad in the
past few years, it was because the system was not allowed to function, not
because there were no functions or rights available to such institutions as
the COA.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: May I just make a few remarks before I introduce my
proposed amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner will please proceed under the five-minute
rule.
MR. GUINGONA: My understanding with the Floor Leader is that because we
have not asked for reconsideration, we might be given a little more time,
Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed, Commissioner Guingona.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
I could see that the intention expressed by Commissioner Nolledo and the
misgivings expressed by Commissioner Monsod have their own merits. But I
suppose
we are all agreed that public funds should be protected, and the protection
that is usually done is through audit. In fact, we created a Commission on
Audit to serve as the watchdog or guardian of the peoples money.
Commissioner Monsod gave an example of the so-called grandfather
equity wherein a 10
percent equity was involved. First of all, I would like to cite again that I
believe there is that logical and reasonable presumption that public officials
will perform their duties in accordance with law. In other words, they will not
abuse the exercise of their functions. Of course, if it is only a
P10-thousand equity, it would appear ridiculous for the Commission on Audit
to go after it and waste its time sending people to such a corporation or
entity just to make sure the peoples money is protected, but I would like to
invite attention that the equity could run into millions.
Anyway, under my proposed amendments there will be safeguards, Madam
President, and because of these we might wish to delete this provision that
Commissioner Nolledo had spoken about, the requirement that there should
be granting of authority by the law or by the charter that grants the equity.
Before I proceed, Madam President, I would like to invite attention to the
wording of Section 2 (1) (b) which refers to autonomous educational
institutions. Perhaps, instead of autonomous educational institutions, we
change it to AUTONOMOUS STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES so as not to
leave any
doubt that we are referring to government or public educational institutions,
not to private educational institutions. The whole Section 2, as amended,
shall now read as follows. The Commission on Audit shall have the exclusive
power and authority to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to
the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property,
owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including on a postaudit basis:
(a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted
fiscal autonomy under this Constitution, (b) AUTONOMOUS STATE COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES, (c) government-owned or controlled corporations and
their
subsidiaries, and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or
equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government: PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT IN THE INSTANCES ENUMERATED WHERE THE INTERNAL
CONTROL SYSTEM OF THE AUDITED AGENCIES IS INADEQUATE, THE
COMMISSION MAY ADOPT SUCH MEASURES
INCLUDING TEMPORARY OR SPECIAL PREAUDIT AS ARE NECESSARY AND
APPROPRIATE TO CORRECT THE DEFICIENCIES.
First of all, I want to find out if the Committee will accept my proposed
amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, because of the length of the amendments,
may we be given two minutes to confer with the proponent because we just
want to make
sure we understand all the phrases he has introduced.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 10:15 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:35 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, after consultation with the honorable
members of the Committee, I have amended my proposed amendment by
deleting the word
EXCLUSIVE because I was made to understand that the Commission on Audit
will still have the preponderant power and authority to examine, audit and
settle.
THE PRESIDENT: By the way, for the information of the Commissioners, we
are discussing the amended committee report on the constitutional
commissions,
particularly on the Commission on Audit, this two-page paper, copies of
which were circulated the day before yesterday.
Commissioner Guingona may proceed.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
Section 2 (1) will now read as follows: The Commission on Audit shall have
the power and authority to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining
to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and
property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to the government, or any
of its
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities. including on a postaudit basis:
(a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted
fiscal autonomy under this Constitution, (b) autonomous STATE COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES, (c) government-owned or controlled corporations and
their
subsidiaries, and (d) such nongovernmental entities receiving subsidy or
equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are
required
by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of
subsidy or equity: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE THE INTERNAL
CONTROL SYSTEM
OF THE AUDITED AGENCIES IS INADEQUATE, THE COMMISSION MAY ADOPT
SUCH MEASURES INCLUDING TEMPORARY OR SPECIAL PREAUDIT AS ARE
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO
CORRECT THE DEFICIENCIES.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: Will the Commissioner please continue because there is
another sentence to complete that section.
MR. GUINGONA: All right, I will finish the whole Section 2 (1): It shall keep
the general accounts of the government and, for such period as may be
provided by law, preserve the vouchers pertaining thereto.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Except for a minor correction on line 27 which is to put a
comma (,) after including, the Committee accepts the amendments.
MR. GUINGONA: May I know the purpose of the comma (,) after including.
MR. MONSOD: The purpose of the comma (;) is merely to clarify the intent of
the Article, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, the purpose is that on a postaudit basis the
enumerations are included?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
by the
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
We propose to add a new section which is Section 3, to prevent future
abuses, especially during times of a national emergency when martial law
powers are
assumed.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be Section 3.
MR. OPLE: I propose to add a new section on line 9, page 2 of the amended
committee report which reads: NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED EXEMPTING ANY
ENTITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT OR ITS SUBSIDIARY IN ANY GUISE WHATEVER FOR ANY
INVESTMENTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT.
May I explain my reasons on record.
We know that a number of entities of the government took advantage of the
absence of a legislature in the past to obtain presidential decrees exempting
themselves from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit, one notable
example of which is the Philippine National Oil Company which is really an
empty
shell. It is a holding corporation by itself, and strictly on its own account. Its
funds were not very impressive in quantity by underneath that shell
there were billions of pesos in a multiplicity of companies. The PNOC the
empty shell under a presidential decree was covered by the jurisdiction of
the Commission on Audit, but the billions of pesos invested in different
corporations underneath it were exempted from the coverage of the
Commission on
Audit.
Another example is the United Coconut Planters Bank. The Commission on
Audit has determined that the coconut levy is a form of taxation; and that,
therefore, these funds attributed to the shares of 1,400,000 coconut farmers
are, in effect, public funds. And that was, I think, the basis of the PCGG in
undertaking that last major sequestration of up to 94 percent of all the
shares in the United Coconut Planters Bank. The charter of the UCPB,
through a
presidential decree, exempted it from the jurisdiction of the Commission on
Audit, it being a private organization.
So these are the fetuses of future abuse that we are slaying right here with
this additional section.
May I repeat the amendment, Madam President: NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED
EXEMPTING ANY ENTITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS SUBSIDIARY IN ANY
GUISE WHATEVER FOR ANY
INVESTMENTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT.
THE PRESIDENT: May we know the position of the
Committee on the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople?
MR. JAMIR: If the honorable Commissioner will change the number of the
section to 4, we will accept the amendment.
MR. OPLE: Gladly, Madam President.
Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, point of inquiry on the new amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
May I just ask a few questions of Commissioner Ople.
Is that not included in Section 2 (1) where it states: (c) government-owned
or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries? So that if these
government-owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries are
subjected to the audit of the COA, any law exempting certain government
corporations or subsidiaries will be already unconstitutional.
So I believe, Madam President, that the proposed amendment is
unnecessary.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, since this has been accepted, we would like
to reply to the point raised by Commissioner de Castro.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod will please proceed.
MR. MONSOD: I think the Commissioner is trying to avoid the situation that
happened in the past, because the same provision was in the 1973
Constitution
and yet somehow a law or a decree was passed where certain institutions
were exempted from audit. We are just reaffirming, emphasizing, the role of
the
Commission on Audit so that this problem will never arise in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner de Castro satisfied?
MR. DE CASTRO: Just one more comment, Madam President.
We are making a hate charter, as one of those newspapers stated, because
we keep reminding ourselves that these institutions were already covered by
this
same provision and yet a presidential decree was passed knowing it was
unconstitutional, and nobody questioned it. But when we are in a free
country,
somebody will question it as unconstitutional.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we now ready to vote?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just make one comment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner will please proceed.
MR. MONSOD: Earlier Commissioner Guingona, in withdrawing his
amendment to add EXCLUSIVE, made a statement about the preponderant
right of the COA.
For the record, we would like to clarify the reason for not including that word.
First, we do not want an Article that would constitute a disincentive or
an obstacle to private investment. There are government institutions with
private investments in them, and some of these investors Filipinos, as well
as
in some cases, foreigners require the presence of private auditing firms,
not exclusively, but concurrently. So this does not take away the power of the
Commission on Audit. Second, there are certain instances where private
auditing may be required, like in the listing in the stock exchange. In other
words,
we do not want this provision to be an unnecessary obstacle to privatization
of these companies or attraction of investments.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we request Commissioner Ople to please repeat his
proposed amendment.
the words unnecessary and excessive and add the word AND after
irregular, so it would read: or disallowance of irregular AND extravagant
expenditures. On line 8, add the word AND after funds, so it would read:
government funds AND properties.
MR. JAMIR: Will the Commissioner please repeat his amendments?
MR. SARMIENTO: As amended, Section 2 (2) will now read: The Commission
shall have the exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to
define the scope of its audit and examination, formulate the techniques
required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and
regulations
including those for the prevention or disallowance of irregular AND
extravagant expenditures or uses of government funds AND properties.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. JAMIR: Will the Commissioner please explain to this body the reasons for
his amendments?
MR. SARMIENTO: As I mentioned, the words deleted are redundant, and I
suggest these amendments for simplicity and economy so that we will have
a brief but
comprehensive Constitution.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I believe these words were used in the
previous Constitution and one of our apprehensions is that the deletion of
these might
be interpreted as excluding them.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, if that is the intent, to repeat what had
been previously stated in the old Constitution, may I know then the meaning
of
scope and extent, formulate and establish, techniques and
methods which are one and the same thing?
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President, we are referring to the words
unnecessary and excessive on line 7, because these words have different
meanings from
irregular and extravagant. But with respect to line 3, we agree with the
Commissioner that and extent is a surplusage.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Commissioner Monsod.
MR. MONSOD: On line 4, and establish is also a surplusage but we are not
sure about and methods because techniques and methods have
different
connotations and so with unnecessary and excessive.
MR. SARMIENTO: I think the words excessive and extravagant are one
and the same thing.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I would like to interpose an objection to the proposal of
Commissioner Sarmiento. The concepts irregular, unnecessary, excessive
and
extravagant were at one time or another the subject of controversial
jurisprudence. In other words, these are not just accepted doctrines. These
have been
subjected to thorough debates in the Supreme Court. So I propose the
retention of these concepts to preserve the doctrine of the jurisprudence laid
down on
these matters.
MR. SARMIENTO: With that manifestation of Commissioner Aquino, I withdraw
my amendment by deletion of the words unnecessary and excessive.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, before Commissioner Sarmiento withdraws his
amendment, may I ask him whether or not he will agree to an addition to
further
strengthen this provision?
MR. SARMIENTO: I will agree.
MR. OPLE: So that in the string of adjectives, it will now read like this:
irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant AND UNCONSCIONABLE
expenditures
or uses of government funds and properties.
MR. SARMIENTO: I welcome the amendment by addition.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please read this particular paragraph
with his amendments.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, the entire Section 2 (2) reads: The
Commission shall have the exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in
this
Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the
techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and
auditing
rules and regulations including those for the prevention or disallowance of
irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant OR UNCONSCIONABLE
expenditures
or uses of government funds and properties.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments have been accepted by the Committee. Is
there any objection to the proposed amendments of Commissioner
Sarmiento? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendments are approved.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
The proposed amendment is on the same paragraph, subject matter of the
Sarmiento amendment. On Section 2, page 2, line 5 of the amended draft,
insert
PRESCRIBE before the word and, then AN between the words promulgate
and accounting and SYSTEM RELATIVE THERETO between accounting
and and. On
line 6, between the words the and prevention insert DETERMINATION
AND, so that lines 5 and 6 would now read as follows: required therefor,
PRESCRIBE
and promulgate AN accounting SYSTEM RELATIVE THERETO and auditing
rules and regulations including those for the DETERMINATION AND
prevention:
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we will have a problem prescribing and
promulgating an accounting system in all of these institutions because that is
a very
massive undertaking on the part of the COA. Actually, the COA accounting
and auditing rules would be the framework within which the particular
enterprises
can design their own systems.
MR. DAVIDE: I will withdraw the amendment consisting of the word
PRESCRIBE, but I will insist on the rest.
MR. MONSOD: So how will lines 5 and 6 now read?
MR. DAVIDE: They will read as follows: required therefor, and promulgate AN
accounting SYSTEM RELATIVE THERETO and auditing rules and regulations
including those for the DETERMINATION AND prevention.
MR. MONSOD: I think this is a question of interpretation of what accounting
system means. If we are talking about general principles, we have no
objection. But if the COA will go into an individual type of accounting system
for different types of enterprises and it might . . .
MR. DAVIDE: The COA will only prescribe the general principles. MR.
MONSOD. If the understanding is that the COA will only prescribe the general
principles, we want to know the reaction of the Committee.
For the record, Madam President, the COA is really more involved in the
auditing function, not in the setting up of an accounting system.
MR. DAVIDE: At any rate, the auditing function must be very related to the
accounting system.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, as long as we go about general principles, we will accept
the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: That is the meaning, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide please read again lines 5 and 6?
MR. DAVIDE: Lines 5 and 6, Madam President, will now read: required
therefor, and promulgate AN accounting SYSTEM RELATIVE THERETO and
auditing . . .
MR. MONSOD: If we say promulgate accounting systems relative thereto, is
it plural or singular?
MR. DAVIDE: It is singular, AN accounting SYSTEM. Accounting systems
would be a business. To be in line with the interpretation, I will amend again,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that the body is now ready to vote on the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Davide, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor and 22 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. DAVIDE: And, finally, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I move for the deletion of the entire Section 4 on lines 19 and
20.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please explain?
MR. DAVIDE: The reason is that this is already included in the Common
Provisions.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: We accept, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed deletion of Section 4 has been accepted by
the Committee.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
With the permission of the sponsor, I would like to propose two new
provisions. The first would read as follows: PRIVATE AUDITING FIRMS MAY
NOT EXAMINE OR
before
the anomaly is done? I feel that this is part of the work of the COA; it is part
of the duty mentioned by Commissioner Ople for them to look into this so
that the peoples money will be protected. I agree with Commissioner
Monsod that when the amount is insignificant or small, we do not go into the
trouble
of looking into the accounts, but not when the money involved is big,
because some of these entities are subsidized up to 100 percent, even
though they are
called banks or nongovernmental entities. For all practical purposes, they are
already government corporations because they are using 100 percent of
government money, the peoples money.
MR. MONSOD: May we ask the honorable Commissioner what he considers as
a minimum size. Is it a percentage or an amount?
MR. GUINGONA: If the sponsor wishes to put it in percentage, I can amend
my proposed provision to 60 percent.
MR. MONSOD: No, I am just asking a question.
MR. GUINGONA: I am answering it.
MR. MONSOD: I see. So, it can be an institution or a group or an organization
with a P15,000 asset or equity and the government has P9,000 in it or 60
percent, and the government would, under the proposal, be able to have
preaudit rights. Preaudit means that a COA auditor has to be a resident in the
company.
MR. GUINGONA: No, I was talking of temporary or special audit.
MR. MONSOD: A special preaudit.
MR. GUINGONA: And as we have discussed yesterday, temporary or special
preaudit will not require a resident auditor. May I explain what I mean by
temporary?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just say that earlier we had an
amendment on Section 21 in which we sat down and worked out an
amendment which includes
the subject matter that the Commissioner is now proposing to be covered by
another section. May I ask if he is now proposing an amendment to the
amendment
that was agreed upon between him and the-Committee?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, but what is the basis? Is it because of the exposure of
the government in that agency such as equity or is it because of indications
that there are irregularities that he shifts from postaudit to preaudit or have
both? I want to clarify this. What makes the Commissioner shift to a
temporary preaudit? Is it the equity of the government or is it the probability
of irregularity?
MR. GUINGONA: There are two requirements under my proposed provision.
First is that we have a substantial amount. I say 60 percent. Some people
may say 70
percent, 80 percent, or even 100 percent. The second requirement is that the
internal control system of that agency is inadequate. In other words, it is
established that there is an irregularity.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The COA will make the conclusion that the internal control is
weak. Is that right?
MR. GUINGONA: The COA will have the discretion but this could be
challenged in court.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. But the proponent has said that one of the bases for
shifting to preaudit is that the internal control is weak. Is that right?
MR. GUINGONA: I beg your pardon?
MR. NATIVIDAD: The internal control is weak.
MR. GUINGONA: It is inadequate. By this, I mean, for example in the case of
the COMELEC, before the present administration, there have been cases
actually
documented where there had been overpricing in the acquisition of ballots
up to 50 percent of the actual purchase price.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Then what exactly is the basis for imposing preaudit?
MR. GUINGONA: It is to prevent the money from being diverted because once
it is diverted, it is very hard to run after that money.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, we realize that is the objective.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am asking at what point in time and what the reason is for
imposing preaudit, because the general principle is postaudit.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, can I move for a vote? There has been
sufficient discussions. We have three more speakers for the other
amendments.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Let us then put the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Guingona to a vote.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Guingona, please raise their hand.
Does the Commissioner want to read the proposed section?
MR. GUINGONA: The proposed amendment reads: NONGOVERNMENTAL
ENTITIES RECEIVING SUBSIDY OR EQUITY EQUIVALENT TO SIXTY PERCENT OF
THEIR PAID-UP CAPITAL
PROVIDED THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS NOT LESS THAN ONE MILLION,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE SUBJECT TO
TEMPORARY OR SPECIAL PREAUDIT
WHERE THE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM OF SUCH ENTITIES IS INADEQUATE.
Madam President, I have added the phrase PROVIDED THE AMOUNT
INVOLVED IS ONE MILLION OR MORE.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Gascon seeking recognition?
MR. GASCON: Basically, I wonder if we can suspend the session so we can
consider this more seriously.
MR. ROMULO: There is a motion to vote on the floor, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a motion to vote; I am sorry.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, it seems that the proposal is being
amended by instinct. We are talking about the Constitution.
May we submit to a vote?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment which
has been read by Commissioner Guingona, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised
their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 6 votes in favor and 25 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we hear a motion to suspend because there will be a
mass?
MR. ROMULO: There are only two more speakers with very short
amendments and the pangs of hunger make one brief. So, may I suggest that
we continue.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. ROMULO: Just two more amendments. They will be very brief, I assure
everybody.
May I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Since the President kept us here late last night, I am exercising
the same privilege.
THE PRESIDENT: I agree.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I will withdraw my amendment and
reserve it this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other amendment?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I move to suspend the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 11:59 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:48 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
May I call the sponsors attention to Section 2, paragraph 1, line 22, wherein
the word audit was used; and on line 27, the phrase including, on a
postaudit basis was used.
Is my understanding correct that the postaudit basis for the constitutional
commissions, autonomous educational institutions, government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries or such nongovernmental
entities receiving subsidy or equity, etcetera, would preclude a regular audit
like
a preaudit?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the enumeration is for institutions that will
be subject to postaudit but would not include preaudit except for the
amendment
that we accepted this morning, which was discussed with Chairman Teofisto
Guingona of the COA and presented by Commissioner Serafin Guingona,
where the
internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, referring to all
of the enumerated agencies. Then, the COA may adopt such measures
including
temporary or special preaudit as are necessary and appropriate to correct
the deficiency. Precisely, we accept the fact that there are situations in which
the COA must be allowed to enter any audited agency and implement
measures to make sure that the deficiencies are corrected.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, if we exempt these enumerated bodies from
the regular audit, are we not legislating on a class basis? Are we not
indulging in
class legislation?
MR. MONSOD: A postaudit is also a regular audit. We are not engaging in
class legislation because we are merely acknowledging certain distinctions
with
respect to these bodies which would make it difficult for them to operate
normally if a preaudit procedure were to be applied to them, but subject,
however, to that exception that we accepted this morning which we felt was
well made.
MR. SUAREZ: Why should the sponsor venture a supposition that conducting
a preaudit, insofar as these bodies enumerated here are concerned, would
hamper
their respective efficiencies?
MR. MONSOD: This morning, we tried to explain the reasons why the
committee report contained this recommendation. In the case of the
constitutional bodies
which have been accorded fiscal autonomy, it would defeat the purpose of
the fiscal autonomy if these were allowed. In the case of the government or
state
educational institutions, in our opinion, it is also a case where a postaudit
would be sufficient but a preaudit, as we have seen in many cases, would
hamper the operations in the education system. This is very important
because sometimes the disbursements are not made on time, as has
happened in the
past, and there is enough safeguard anyway when the auditor conducts a
postaudit. By the way, postaudit does not mean that it happens only once a
year. We
can have postaudit system regularly and we can have a resident auditor
conducting a postaudit. With respect to the government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries, we took cognizance of the fact that in
these institutions, the normal operations involve amounts in excess of
P500,000
which are exempt from preaudit. And as we said early this morning, there are
instances where the expenditure may be completely regular. In other words,
these are regular expenditures and a mere delay is enough to cost a lot of
money.
On instances where the regular board has already approved an expenditure
and we have many examples of that we are afraid of COA instituting as
a
superboard that has the right to pass on disbursements that have gone
through the normal board procedures a purchase which is above P500,000 by
corporations that have a turnover of P2 billion or P1 billion a year. The
presence of the postaudit is a deterrent by itself and the reason why this was
abused during the past years was not because there was no right of pre-or
postaudit. As a matter of fact, preaudit and postaudit were there, but the
system
was not allowed to operate normally. It is not a question of the function that
is available, but that it was not allowed to operate normally. And our
assumption was, if the COA can go in there at any time and correct
deficiencies and have all the measures available in order to make sure that it
functions
normally, then we can have a safeguard; at the same time, we are not
opening up the possibility of an arbitrary auditor in a corporation that could
hamper
its normal operations.
MR. SUAREZ: One final clarificatory question, Madam President. Does the
sponsor have any objection in constitutionalizing the phrase postaudit
basis
under this proposed section?
MR. MONSOD: We had thought and discussed that, and with the proviso
where we allow the COA to come in when necessary, we feel that there are
enough
safeguards and powers given to the; COA to fulfill its duty and obligation.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you; and with those clarifications on record, we will
refrain from submitting the two proposed amendments we have in mind.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: I move that we close the period of amendments on the Article
on the Commission on Audit.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 469
ON SECOND READING
(Article on the Commission on Audit)
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I propose that we vote on Second
Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 469, the Article on the Commission on
Audit, as
amended.
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Proposed Resolution No. 469, as
amended, on the Commission on Audit, please raise their hand. (All Members
raised
their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand )
The results show 32 votes in favor and none against.
Proposed Resolution No. 469 on the Commission on Audit is approved, as
amended, on Second Reading.
(8) Recommend to the President the removal of. or any other disciplinary
action against, any officer or employee it has deputized, for violation or
disregard of or disobedience to its directive, order or decision;
(9) Submit to the President and the Batasang Pambansa a comprehensive
report on the conduct and manner of each election, plebiscite, and
referendum; and
(10) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law.
SECTION 3. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization or
coalition shall be valid, except as may be provided in this Constitution under
the
party-list system.
SECTION 4. Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any
form of harassment and discrimination.
SECTION 5. Political parties or organizations or coalitions registered under
the party-list system shall not be represented in the voters registration
boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers or other similar
bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in
accordance
with law.
SECTION 6. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions,
and shall promulgate its rules of procedures in order to expedite disposition
of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election
cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
SECTION 7. The enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the
operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of
communication
or information, all grants, special privileges or concessions granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
any government-owned or controlled corporation, may be supervised or
regulated by the Commission during the election period, including rates,
reasonable
free space, and time allotments for public information campaigns and forums
among candidates for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest and
peaceful
elections.
SECTION 8. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases; the
election period shall commence ninety days before the day of election and
shall
end thirty days thereafter.
SECTION 9. No pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence for
violation of election laws, rules and regulations shall be granted by the
President
without the favorable recommendation of the Commission.
SECTION 10. Final decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission on Election
contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final,
inappealable and executory.
SECTION 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the
expenses for holding regular and special elections, referenda and plebiscites
shall be provided in the regular or special appropriations and, once
approved, shall be released automatically upon certification by the Chairman
of the
Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: The sponsor, Commissioner Foz, is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER FOZ
MR. FOZ: Madam President, in connection with Proposed Resolution No. 521
which has to do with the provisions on the Commission on Elections, we
would like
to point out the highlights of the provisions with regard to the basic changes
that we have introduced in the Committee the changes numbering to nine
and
some of them involve some basic provisions affecting the Commission on
Elections.
We have already known in our discussion on the Common Provisions for the
three constitutional commissions that fiscal autonomy has been granted to
the
three commissions, including the Commission on Elections. We said that by
fiscal autonomy, we mean, as provided expressly in the provisions of the
Common
Provisions, that the annual appropriations of the commission shall be
released automatically and regularly to the commission concerned.
We go to the other changes now. On the powers and functions of the
Commission on Elections, there is a change in that the commission is made
the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election returns and qualifications of all elective
provincial, city, municipal and barangay officials. In other words, the
commission has lost its jurisdiction over election contests involving the
members of the legislature, and this is only in conjunction with the report of
the Committee on the Legislative which seeks to recreate the Electoral
Tribunal in the legislature. Also, this provision would vest the Commission on
Elections with competence to decide controversies on the election returns
and qualifications of municipal and barangay officials because at present
under
the existing provision of the 1973 Constitution, the commission has
jurisdiction only over cases involving elective provincial and city officials, but
not
the municipal and barangay officials. That is one basic change.
Concerning the power of the commission to deputize law enforcement
agencies and instrumentalities of the government, including the Armed
Forces of the
Philippines, for the purpose of ensuring free and honest elections, the
Committee has decided to empower the commission to deputize, only with
notice to
the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
The third major change has to do with the registration of political parties,
organizations or coalitions and the accreditation of a citizens arm of the
Commission. Parties which seek to achieve their goals through violence and
refuse to uphold this Constitution shall not be registered. In other words, we
have decided to do away with the two-party system which has been installed by the 1973 Constitution. We have also, of course, reenacted the
prohibition
on religious acts being registered as a political party.
Another significant change is the provision empowering the Commission on
Elections, on a verified complaint or on its own, to file petitions in court for
inclusion or exclusion of voters from the registry of qualified voters; and also,
not only to investigate but, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws.
Another change is the provision allowing partial block voting. The provision
reads:
No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization or coalition shall be
valid, except as may be provided in this Constitution under the party-list
system.
The meaning of a party-list system will be explained later on.
Another provision reads:
Commission on
Elections.
MR. REGALADO: In the case of municipal officials, then it will be the regional
trial courts which will exercise original jurisdiction.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is correctly put, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: But altogether, in the ultimate analysis on appellate
jurisdiction, they will all have to go to the Commission on Elections
eventually.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. They will still be the sole judge of all
election contests.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, perhaps we can give the Commissioner a
rationale of the pertinent provision. We started from the premise that if the
COMELEC
and this was discussed with the Commission on Elections quite extensively
has original jurisdiction over provincial officials, then it should also be fit
to handle lower officials. The only possible obstacle is the availability and the
number of COMELEC officials.
The COMELEC, however, in the review of its organization, found that there
were some redundancies within their system now, principally at the regional
level. And the redundant personnel can really be reoriented or reorganized,
which they are in the process of doing, to become regional election arbiters.
In other words, the head office of the COMELEC does not have to send people
out. First of all, they do not have that many, but they are going to set up and
organize in order to handle precisely election contests in the barangays and
the municipalities. The process of appeal from there is to the COMELEC itself.
In other words, there would still be a two-step process. This is the procedure
that is now envisaged by the COMELEC, if these procedures or provisions are
approved by this body.
MR. MAAMBONG: The thing is, we are not only concerned really with the lack
of personnel of the COMELEC; we are more concerned with the importance
that
should be given to a barangay and a municipal election contest. It is our
experience, considering that we have gone to a series of political exercises,
that normally the COMELEC, in order to supplement whatever personnel we
have in the regional level, usually send hearing officers. And we strongly feel
that at the very first time that a case, whether it be a minor case of a
barangay official or a municipal official, is brought before a tribunal, it should
not be placed in the hands of merely hearing officers but of a court. That is
really our intention because we are talking here of the sanctity of the right
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. They would not claim to be; they would claim that there
is no religion at all. They may be ideological groups. I would just like to
point that out. There may be some amendments in that regard that may
have to be introduced when the proper time comes.
Thank you.
MR. FOZ: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Although I am a member of the Committee, I would like to ask
some questions for clarification.
On page 2, Section 2, subparagraph 2, the provision reads:
. . . the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of all elective provincial, city, municipal and barangay
officials.
So, the COMELEC will be the sole judge of contests involving provincial, city,
municipal and barangay officials.
In Section 10, it reads:
Final decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission on election contests
involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, unappealable
.
..
I think that should be unappealable and executory. Is there no
inconsistency between the two? While Section 2, subparagraph 2 embraces
provincial, city,
municipal and barangay officials, Section 10 embraces only municipal and
barangay officials.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, this Section 10 was originally in the
Common Provisions which, on motion, was transposed, to be placed strictly
under the
Commission on Elections. But as transposed, the corrections should not
appear. As already corrected, it should properly read: Decisions, FINAL
orders or
rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal
and barangay offices shall be final and IMMEDIATELY executory. The word
unappealable was stricken off.
MR. RODRIGO: No. My point there is not on the word unappealable.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, I just wanted to put the wordings properly. It was the
sense of the Committee that with respect to municipal and barangay officials
in
election contests involving them, the decisions could be final and
immediately executory.
MR. RODRIGO: How about decisions in the case of provincial and city
officials?
MR. REGALADO: They made a distinction because the original jurisdiction as
envisioned would be in the Commission on Elections itself and, of course, the
appellate jurisdiction would be to the Supreme Court.
MR. RODRIGO: But it says shall be the sole judge. That could connote
finality. That is in Section 2, subparagraph 2. It would imply that it is final; it
is the sole authority and no appeal or petition for certiorari will thereafter be
allowed.
MR. REGALADO: That was the observation of Commissioner Maambong, and
he said he will introduce an amendment at the proper time.
MR. RODRIGO: So, what is the intention of the Committee then? Is it the
intention that decisions of the COMELEC shall be final for provincial, city,
municipal and barangay officials or only for municipal and barangay officials?
MR. REGALADO: The thinking here is that it would only be for barangay and
municipal officials.
MR. RODRIGO: So, that would be amended accordingly.
MR. REGALADO: And on the matter of the COMELEC being the sole judge,
although there is a provision in certain instances for appeal by certiorari to
the
Supreme Court, that does not affect the constitutional provision that it be the
sole judge because, after all, an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court
from a decision of the COMELEC would merely involve the question of
mistake of law and jurisdiction.
MR. RODRIGO: Just another point. In Section 2, subparagraph 4 on page 2, it
says, Deputize, with notice to the President, law enforcement agencies and
instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the
MR. REGALADO: Yes, that is correct; but at least with prior notice the
President is made aware that there is a need for deputation as recommended
by the
COMELEC. Without prior notice, the President, even if he knows that there
might be a need for deputation and for reasons of his own, may cause the
transfer
of a military contingent to another area on the pretext that it is necessary for
the anti-insurgency campaign.
MR. RODRIGO: But at the same time, the President is the Commander-inChief of the Armed Forces. As such he is empowered to command the Armed
Forces. Under
this provision, he will share this power temporarily with the Commission on
Elections.
MR. REGALADO: As we said, if the President insists on not giving the
corresponding cooperation despite the need for deputation, then he . . .
MR. RODRIGO: But there will be a lapse of time, let us say, a few days, before
the President knows that the Commission on Elections has deputized the
Armed Forces, but before he or she can say no I dont like this, the Armed
Forces must obey the deputation order of the Commission on Elections.
MR. REGALADO: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Is this not an invasion of the Commander-in-Chiefs power of
the President? During those few days, at least, there are two
commanders-in-chief.
MR. REGALADO: Actually, the COMELEC there is not usurping the powers of
the President because deputation would be done ostensibly with prior
consultation.
If the President is not available, however, the COMELEC should not exercise
this power improvidently, but only to meet an urgent situation.
MR. RODRIGO: Maybe that was the reason the 1971 Constitutional
Convention used the phrase with the consent of the President. So, that
would not be a
diminution of the commander-in-chief powers of the President.
Thank you very much.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Tan be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: No, we are more concerned about his candidacy because we
are on this provision.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President, and I also thank the
Commissioner.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I be allowed to ask one clarificatory
question?
Section 2, (2) provides that the COMELEC shall:
Be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of all elective provincial, city, municipal and barangay officials.
This provision is silent as to when the contest shall be filed, resolved and
decided by the COMELEC. I am reminded of that provision in the Article on
the
Judiciary that the Supreme Court and other courts are mandated to resolve
cases within a certain period of time so that violation of that mandate or
requirement will constitute culpable violation of the Constitution. Does not
the Commissioner think that we should specify the periods within which
election contest shall be filed and resolved?
MR. REGALADO: The same question was raised this morning with respect to
the other constitutional commissions and Commissioner Davide proposed the
adoption
of a rule similar to that which we adopted for the Judiciary as to when a case
or matter is deemed submitted and within what period it should be decided
since a constitutional commission is a collegial body, although exercising
quasi-judicial functions only. But it was felt that since under Section 6, the
Commission on Elections shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to
expedite disposition of election contests, and considering the fact that under
the Article on the Judiciary there is a provision that all rules of procedure of
quasi-judicial bodies shall be approved and shall be effective only until
disapproval thereof by the Supreme Court, this matter should be left to the
Commission on Elections, to adopt their own rules subject to approval
thereafter by the Supreme Court, just as the other constitutional
commissions do.
MR. SARMIENTO: Does not the Commissioner think that we should include a
provision on the period within which to resolve election cases, because
election is
vital to democracy? The COMELEC is separate and distinct from the other
commissions. Here we are speaking of the right of the people to choose their
officers.
MR. REGALADO: That is precisely why they are given the rule-making power
which the Supreme Court will oversee as to whether these rules will grant
appropriate relief and remedy. Section 5 under the Common Provisions
states:
Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case
or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission
for decision or resolution. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or
by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to
the Supreme Court in certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days
from receipt of a copy thereof.
Now, to the other details: As to when the case should be filed, that depends
on the initiative of the person filing the case; as to when the case shall be
deemed submitted for decision, that can be the subject of the rules of the
Commission on Elections which, after all, have to be approved by the
Supreme
Court.
MR. SARMIENTO: But can we not possibly specify the period within which the
COMELEC has to resolve the case so that a violation of the same shall
constitute
a culpable violation of the Constitution?
MR. REGALADO: It says here: within sixty days from the date of its
submission. This applies to all the constitutional commissions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, will the sponsor yield to a few
questions?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The first one has something to do with Section 1. In
view of the experience during the last election, would the sponsors wish to
add
additional criteria for COMELEC Commissioners, such as, independence,
probity and moral character?
MR. MONSOD: We had considered those. We felt that we could really say a lot
of words as to unquestioned integrity, probity and so on. But, in the final
analysis, we have to assume that the appointing power has to consider the
reasons. Nevertheless, we would be prepared to discuss the matter at the
appropriate time, maybe, on a uniform basis with the other commissions.
Thank you.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: My second question is on Section 5, page 2.
Again during the past few years, there has been a trend towards politics of
issues rather than the politics of personalities. I would like to refer to the
resolution submitted by Commissioner Davide, recommending the need for
an additional criterion in the registration of political parties, which should
include a well-defined government program or platform.
Will the sponsor consider a provision to that effect?
MR. MONSOD: One of the problems of having a requirement like that is the
assumption that the party applying for registration is a political party which
takes into consideration the total programs of government. But the intent of
the Committee is to open up the system so that even sectoral interests can
register and field candidates. So, we are afraid that if we impose conditions
that are really more applicable to a national political party, we might be
frustrating precisely our intent to have a multiparty in the country.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I understand that but even citizens groups have clearly
defined platforms or programs like national development programs or
philosophy
of social and economic development.
MR. MONSOD: I am not sure if all of them would have it, but in any case the
Commission on Elections, in the process of registration, has certain criteria
that would deal with such details. We were just afraid that if we assume and
put in certain things, we might be excluding organizations that deserve to be
included in the party-list system.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be
recognized.
even financial
capability. Would those be included in the examination of the nature of the
candidacy?
MR. MONSOD: In the situation that I have been familiar with, I do not think
the availability of money was really a criterion. It was really the intent to
confuse the voters or to frustrate the will of the people in some other way.
But mere financial incapacity and even the lack of a broad program of
government, as far as I know, have not been part of the criteria for declaring
a nuisance candidacy.
MR. BENNAGEN: But what is the basis for saying that there is an intent to
confuse the electorate?
MR. MONSOD: A very simple example would be somebody with a similar
name.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President, Commissioner Padilla, is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Will the distinguished sponsor answer a few questions?
MR. MONSOD: Willingly, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. PADILLA: I am referring to Section 7, page 4, which is not copied from
Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution. On line 3, it mentions here media of
communication or information and on line 7, it states: may be supervised
or regulated by the Commission.
I recall that during the 1984 elections, the COMELEC issued resolutions on
equal time, equal space and equal opportunity when then President Marcos
used
the entire facilities of radio and television for his Pulong-Pulong program. He
used the entire network of these stations three or four times. However,
when the Opposition wanted to avail of its right for equal space in the
newspapers, equal time in radio and television and equal opportunity, the
COMELEC
denied the request, ruling that the Pulong-Pulong was a privilege of the Chief
Executive and that the opposition political party was not entitled thereto.
We appealed this COMELEC decision to the Supreme Court, on which it ruled
that the people should be entitled to know the issues and to be apprised of
all
the qualifications of candidates. In other words, there should be a general
information of the people for an intelligent vote on the election. But despite
those valid premises, the conclusion was illogical holding that the opposition
party had no right to utilize the media even if it were only on
Pulong-Pulong while then President Marcos had all the right to air his PulongPulong three or four times.
Will the Committee consider a proposed amendment to ensure equal space,
equal time and equal opportunity during the period of election? The past
provision,
as well as the present one being proposed now says may be supervised or
regulated, which to me is not strong enough to afford the opposition or the
other
candidates this very important principle of equal space, equal time and equal
opportunity.
Another point is: In many countries, especially in Latin America and Spain, I
think they recognize what they call derecho de contestar, the right to reply.
So, if there is a criticism or an attack against a candidate, he has a right to
reply. Not only that; if the criticism or the attack published is on page
1, the reply must also be published on page 1 equal right to reply.
Sometimes, the papers quote ones reply on a small paragraph in the inner
page while
the criticism or the attack is prominently published in the headlines or on
page 1 of the newspaper. Will the Committee consider these ideas?
MR. MONSOD: We have inserted in the proposal at hand the phrase
including rates, reasonable free space and time allotments for public
information
campaigns and forums among candidates hoping that this would clarify the
responsibilities of the COMELEC under this section. Under the Omnibus
Election
Code, there are very specific provisions on equal time, free time, equal space
and so on. If the honorable Commissioner would like to strengthen and
clarify this provision in that regard, we would be happy to entertain such
amendments.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
We want to strengthen this right.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Suarez be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. They would be entitled to similar rights as any other
registered organization.
MR. SUAREZ: Is there no limitation in regard to the number of members of a
political party, organization, or coalition in order to be entitled to
registration?
MR. MONSOD: If we go back to the Omnibus Election Code, this might answer
some other questions. It does say that the rules and regulations would be
promulgated by the Commission on Elections and there is a presumption
here of reasonable rules and regulations. I would suppose that if there were
only
five members of an organization who want to register for participation in the
elections, the Commission might say that they could not be considered a
bona
fide party for purposes of participating in the elections.
MR. SUAREZ: So, we would leave the discretion of the matter of registration
of these five persons who would form a political party to the Commission on
Elections.
MR. MONSOD: That would be a proper subject of legislation by the legislature
because that is in the Omnibus Election Code and of the other rules and
regulations the COMELEC may promulgate.
MR. SUAREZ: Therefore, the Commissioner does not contemplate that this
act of registration would be ministerial in character on the part of the
Commission
on Elections because it is given the discretion of denying registration to an
applicant political party, organization, or coalition?
MR. MONSOD: Yes. First of all, under the same provision there is a general
prohibition for registration of organizations which seek to achieve their goals
through violence or refuse to uphold this Constitution. In the interest of order
there would be some criteria that the law and the COMELEC should adopt.
MR. SUAREZ: May I call the Commissioners attention to Batas Pambansa Blg.
881, the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, particularly to Section 61
thereof, which provides:
Any organized group of persons seeking registration as a national or regional
political party may file with the Commission a verified petition attaching
thereto its Constitution and by-laws, platform or program of government and
such other relevant information as may be required by the Commission. The
Commission shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within
ten days from the date it is submitted for decision.
registration
to an applicant political party?
MR. FOZ: I would say that this refusal to uphold this Constitution has a
broader extent than mere subversion.
MR. SUAREZ: Under the Commissioners interpretation, it would necessarily
embrace the crime of subversion?
MR. FOZ: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: I notice that the conjunction and was used in the clause
which seek to achieve their goals through violence and refuse to uphold this
Constitution. These are two different, essential and critical elements. So we
joined them together and, therefore, it is imperative that these two
elements must be together before denial of an application for registration. Is
my understanding correct?
MR. FOZ: As presently worded, that would seem to be so.
MR. SUAREZ: So in addition to resorting through violence to achieve their
ultimate goals, we would impose as an additional condition the refusal to
uphold
this Constitution. Is that correct?
MR. MONSOD: There must have been an oversight because when this was
being discussed by the Committee, it was our intent that the word should be
or. We
would entertain an amendment to that effect at the proper time.
MR. SUAREZ: My final question is: In the 1935 Constitution, for purposes of
accreditation, there is no such prohibition against a religious sect or one
advocating change of government through violence. What compelling
reasons motivated the sponsors to introduce this particular provision?
MR. FOZ: This proposal aims to prevent the possibility of a religious group or
sect from being registered and gaining political power.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: It is the sense of the Committee that perhaps it was not
considered necessary at the time of the 1935 Constitution, but it was put
into the
1973 Constitution, so we believe that it should be restated in this
Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: So, we are trying to prohibit religious sects from being
registered with the COMELEC?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, religious sects are prohibited from forming political
parties and engaging in political activities.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Natividad be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the distinguished sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. MONSOD: Willingly.
MR. NATIVIDAD: There are present rules on the functions of inspectors and
poll watchers. What would be the function of the poll watchers under this
concept?
MR. MONSOD: Under our draft, the representatives of the political parties
would be exercising the function of poll watchers under the Election Code. In
other words, we are making a distinction between an inspector or a member
of the board of election inspectors itself and a watcher. In the present report
of the Committee, the representatives of the political parties would function
as watchers, but would be disqualified from serving in the board of election
inspectors, board of canvassers and so forth.
MR. NATIVIDAD: There would be no more inspectors for political parties?
MR. MONSOD: No more inspectors.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is there any provision here on the registration of voters?
MR. MONSOD: The only provision is on the powers and functions of the
Commission on Elections under Section 2, paragraph 3, line 15, where we
talk about the
registration of voters.
MR. NATIVIDAD: On page 3, paragraph 7, one of the functions of the
COMELEC reads:
However, with this provision, can we expect the legislature to control election
spending? Madam President, I dare say this will amount to nothing. We will
again be confronted with the same problem during elections where the whole
country will be inundated and drowned by all kinds of propaganda materials
which
the people have to get rid of afterwards. But if we mandate that the
COMELEC shall designate a specific place to exhibit these propaganda
materials,
perhaps this extravagant, unnecessary and whimsical propaganda that the
Filipinos have learned from their experience in politics will be minimized.
I am just thinking aloud. Is the Committees mind open in this regard?
MR. MONSOD: One problem is that it seems to partake already of the nature
of legislation, and it is useless putting it in the Constitution because we have
found from past elections that our politicians were very creative. As a matter
of fact, they could make the opposition candidate a violator by posting his
posters in prohibited places. There are other ways to violate these laws.
In the final analysis, I think the best lesson in preventing overspending
unfortunately habits die hard is to recall that in the past elections
candidates who spent much money, in fact, lost. And this could be a
deterrent in the future.
We agree with the Commissioner that some laws are very difficult to
implement. As a matter of fact, in the last elections, there was a very big KBL
sign on
top of the Manila Hotel and this was the subject of a petition to remove filed
with the COMELEC. That sign was removed, but not those in other places. We
agree with the Commissioner that it is very difficult to implement, but to be
silent about it would not solve the problem either.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I realize that; legally speaking, when we look at it, maybe it
should be in the law. But we have waited so long for the past legislature to
enact such a law. This is our opportunity to make the legislature feel that
there is a need for it. Why do we not just indicate that need, so that future
candidates will not be placed in a situation where they have to outrival each
other in terms of propaganda materials. I think it is about time.
I have been in politics since 1961, and based on my experience, it is now the
right time to indicate in the Constitution a need for such a law. The law
should indicate the particular place where these propaganda materials could
be placed. The Commissioner cited the case of the Manila Hotel KBL
signboard.
Had there been a law to that effect, that would not have happened.
MR. MONSOD: The Commissioner may submit his proposal at the proper
time, and we can submit it to the body for consideration.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, I am just testing the water, if the Committees mind is
open in this regard.
Thank you very much.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
I like to ask questions, if the sponsors would yield.
MR. MONSOD: Willingly.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
My concerns for the moment have to do with the multiparty system,
registration and deregistration, and the possibility of the utilization of
elections to
subvert national sovereignty through foreign contributions to political parties.
So, may I start with Section 5 on page 3, which has already been the subject
of a comment by Commissioner Suarez which states:
Political parties or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list
system shall not be represented in the voters registration boards, boards
of election inspectors, boards of canvassers or other similar bodies.
Does this section contemplate a disengagement of the new Constitution from
the two-party system in the Constitution of 1973?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Therefore, it is opening the constitutional political arena to any
political party, so that in that sense a multiparty system, in lieu of a
two-party system, is going to be installed under Section 5?
MR. MONSOD: Section 5 recognizes the change in the principle here from a
two-party system to a multiparty system, but the mere prohibition of
representation by political parties in the boards of election inspectors and
canvassers does not give birth to a multiparty system.
MR. REGALADO: It is not, otherwise the present parties here which derive
their faith from the Catholic religion will also be disqualified.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
In the event that a certain religious sect with nationwide and even
international networks of members and supporters, in order to circumvent
this
prohibition decides to form its own political party in emulation of those
parties I had mentioned earlier as deriving their inspiration and philosophies
from well-established religious faiths, will that also not fall within this
prohibition?
MR. MONSOD: If the evidence shows that the intention is to go around the
prohibition, then certainly the COMELEC can pierce through the legal fiction.
MR. OPLE: I thank the Commissioner for that answer.
What about this clause prohibiting groups that seek to achieve their goals
through violence and refuse to uphold this Constitution? How is the ground
for
denial of registration to be determined? Is it on the basis of their platforms,
overt acts or of court decisions? I do not think anyone will go to the
COMELEC for registration and profess belief in violence. I suppose the
COMELEC will have its own mechanism for adjudicating this when a
complaint arises.
MR. REGALADO: The COMELEC will have to adopt certain criteria and
guidelines for determination. That is why it is required that there be prior
sufficient
publication before registration.
MR. OPLE: I thank the sponsor for that partial answer. I will now go to
hypothetical examples. The Communist Party of the Philippines I am
referring to
the 1968 CPP not to the 1930 PKP obviously does not subscribe to the
Constitution whether it is the 1973 Constitution or the current Freedom
Constitution
under Proclamation No. 3, and neither may it be reasonably expected to
profess to uphold this new Constitution once it comes into force and effect. I
think
the proof should be self-evident in. the sense that they have an army in the
countryside which is actually waging an armed struggle against the state.
However, the Partido ng Bayan is now being organized with Mr. Jose Maria
Sison, the founder of the CPP of 1968, as the Chairman of the Preparatory
Committee. As soon as the Preparatory Committee phases itself out and this
becomes a full-fledged party, the new leader will be the former detainee,
Horacio Morales, previously of the Development Academy of the Philippines.
The Partido ng Bayan subscribes to the Constitution, and yet, from a certain
ideological point of view, it will not be too dissimilar from the platform and
program of the CPP, perhaps, with a certain overlap of membership in
addition to overlapping philosophies.
Under this paragraph S of Section 2, I suppose the Partido ng Bayan will
qualify for registration, Madam President?
MR. REGALADO: Can I answer?
In the first place, we stated here that this conjunction and here should
properly be or. There was a typographical error. So, it would read: those
which seek to achieve their goals through violence OR refuse to uphold this
Constitution. Thus, even if they ostensibly offer to uphold the Constitution
but their program seeks to achieve their goals through violence, they would
still be disqualified.
MR. OPLE: Yes, of course, if there is a multiparty system and the parties
subscribe to the Constitution, then, I suppose they are qualified for
registration. The burden of proof that they are not qualified will have to rest
on those who will file complaints. Is that a correct reading of the
Commissioners intent?
MR. REGALADO: They will have to file a verified statement. The same shall be
checked, if necessary, by the military intelligence. People who have
derogatory information about them can make the corresponding reports
because there is prior publication, and that is without prejudice to the action
of the
commission itself.
MR. OPLE: Assuming that these parties I am not referring now to any
specific party are found later to have committed breaches of the
Constitution,
appearing right here in paragraph 5 of Section 2, can the COMELEC then,
under this provision, exercise its power to deregister such parties upon
verification of the charges of violation against them, and following the
observance of due process under the Bill of Rights?
MR. REGALADO: We have to make a distinction first. If the breaches of the
Constitution the Commissioner refers to were committed prior to registration
whether those breaches were also in line with their attempt to achieve their
goals through violence. If that is so, then the COMELEC can deregister them.
MR. OPLE: I thank the Commissioner for that.
My last question has to do with what I earlier said could be future attempts
to subvert the national sovereignty from overseas, through foreign
contributions to our political parties. As we will recognize, contemporaries
are already replete with examples of such attempts at capturing
governments
through political parties with money. The most recent documented example
of this was when US $8 million this is according to the records of a U.S.
Senate
investigation group was passed on from the United States through some
Christian democratic parties in Europe, to Chile, in order to help destabilize
the
Marxist government of Allende who, as we know, subsequently was
assassinated after winning a presidential election in that country.
I am not prepared to state that I have any reasonable evidence or that
anybody else may have reasonable evidence about the uses of foreign
funding to
influence political parties in the Philippines. But I think we will have to admit
that this is an ever present possibility.
Does this draft Article of the Committee contain any safeguard against this
risk and danger?
MR. MONSOD: The constitutional provisions do not contain that although that
is contained in the Omnibus Election Code.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
Will the Chairman then consider, at the proper time, a brief provision
containing this concern that we have expressed somewhere in the draft
Article on the
Commission on Elections?
MR. MONSOD: We would be willing to entertain such an amendment.
MR. OPLE: Thank you so much, Madam President; I also thank the sponsors.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, there are no further speakers registered. But
before going to the period of amendments, may I move that we proceed to
the
additional Reference of Business?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the additional Reference of Business.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following additional Committee Reports, the
President making the corresponding references:
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report No. 30 on Proposed Resolution No. 530, prepared by the
Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and
Human Rights, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
SUFFRAGE,
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos: 8, 99,
161, 199, 246, 370 and 405.
Sponsored by Hon. Laurel, Jr., Bernas, Abubakar, Colayco, Sarmiento, Tadeo,
Garcia, Villegas, Rodrigo, Bennagen, Lerum, Bacani, Padilla and Natividad.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 31 on Proposed Resolution No. 531, prepared by the
Committee on General Provisions, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE CONSTITUTION AN
ARTICLE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS AND A SECTION IN THE TRANSITORY
PROVISIONS,
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 49,
80, 88, 95, 97, 133, 142, 172, 174, 200, 203, 215, 230, 243, 260, 267, 271,
306,
307, 315, 328, 341, 345, 351, 390, 395, 408, 420, 423, 436 and 493.
Sponsored by Hon. Rosario Braid, Bacani, Aquino, de Castro, Foz, Gascon,
Maambong, Natividad, Nolledo, Rigos, Uka, Bennagen, Brocka, Davide, Jr., de
los
Reyes, Jr., Garcia, Guingona, Ople, Quesada, Sarmiento, Suarez, Tadeo, Tan,
Treas, Tingson and Villacorta.
To the Steering Committee.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I move for a suspension of the session
and may I request that those interested in making amendments now confer
with the
Chairman of the Committee.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 5:02 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:33 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 521
(Article on the Commission on Elections)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I move that we close the period of
sponsorship and debate on Proposed Resolution No. 521 and that we move
to the period of
amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. ROMULO: May I ask the proponents with possible amendments to
register with me?
Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
I move to introduce an amendment on Section I of the Commission on
Elections, line 14. After the word years, insert this sentence: ONE-THIRD OF
THE
COMMISSION SHALL BE APPOINTED FROM A LIST OF QUALIFIED PERSONS
RECOMMENDED BY OPPOSITION PARTIES.
I have explained this addition during the period of sponsorship and debate
on the Common Provisions. I will not repeat what I have said. I will only add
that the most serious attack against the previous administration was that the
Commission on Elections was perceived to be manned by the Chairman and
Commissioners who were beholden to the President. As a matter of fact, I am
just surmising that because of that serious attack, there were members
appointed to the Commission on Elections who were perceived to be
independent-minded, and if I remember correctly, it was also the perception
that when the
present Chairman, the Honorable Ramon Felipe, Jr., was appointed, he was
specifically placed there in representation of the opposition. Of course, in
fairness to the Chairman of the COMELEC, he is well-qualified for the job; he
has been a Congressman himself and he also claimed that he was not really
appointed because he was an Opposition member.
However, in order to obviate these attacks against the integrity of the
Commission on Elections, especially because it is involved in the election of
officials all over the land, I now seek to introduce this amendment by
addition.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please repeat the amendment on line
14?
MR. MAAMBONG: The sentence would read: ONE-THIRD OF THE COMMISSION
SHALL BE APPOINTED FROM A LIST OF QUALIFIED PERSONS RECOMMENDED
BY OPPOSITION PARTIES.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept that amendment
for the reason that as a neutral arbiter of the election process, we would like
to
insulate the Commission on Elections from politics. Just because there were
abuses in the appointing power before, the solution is not to enshrine politics
in the commission but to try to preserve and insulate it from such politics.
So the Committee regrets that it cannot accept the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Maambong insist on his amendment?
MR. MAAMBONG: I would insist on putting the issue to a vote, Madam
President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We will put the amendment to a vote.
Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Maambong on
line 14 will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the amendment will please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand )
The results show 5 votes in favor and 18 against; the amendment is lost.
May we go section by section?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President.
Commissioner Maambong has another amendment on Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, this amendment is practically accepted
by the Committee. On line 16, Section 1 (2), after President, insert the
words WITH
THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS. As a consequence
of that, on lines 17 and 18, delete the sentence Appointments to the
Commission need no
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted by the Committee?
MR. FOZ: The Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the amendment of Commissioner
Maambong? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I just wanted to make of record that the
reason we put this provision is that we were precisely afraid that the
COMELEC which
deals with politics might now be beholden to politicians. That was the reason
for this provision. However, we have accepted the amendment because we
yield
to the judgment of the body the need for checks and balances with respect
to the constitutional commissions.
MR. ROMULO: May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
The amendment will be on line 11 of the first paragraph of Section 1. After
the word degree, add a comma (,) and the phrase AND MUST NOT HAVE
AND MUST
NOT HAVE BEEN CANDIDATES FOR ANY ELECTIVE POSITION IN THE
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted by the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: It is accepted, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the amendment? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: As a consequence of that, I would now seek to amend line 10 by
deleting the word and before the word holders and substituting it with a
comma (,).
THE PRESIDENT: How will that read?
MR. DAVIDE: The provision will read: least thirty-five years of age, holders of
a college degree AND MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CANDIDATES FOR ANY
ELECTIVE
POSITION IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted by the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Yes. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on line 19, Section 1 (2), after the word
Members, add a comma (,) and the phrase INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN,
then another comma
(,).
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted by the Committee?
less than a year and the replacements will serve for only several years and
they would be barred from being appointed under this Constitution. That is
the unjust situation we are trying to avoid.
MR. DAVIDE: I would have no quarrel with that but if that is the intention, that
should also be applicable to the Civil Service Commission.
MR. FOZ: That is applicable to all three commissions.
MR. DAVIDE: In short, the staggered term provided for under the three
subsections Commission on Audit, Civil Service Commission and the
Commission on
Elections will be destroyed.
MR. FOZ: No.
MR. MONSOD: Actually, it puts an obligation on the appointing power. For
example, in the case of the COMELEC, should the appointing power decide to
reappoint the incumbent chairman, then the appointment must be for less
than the seven years. In other words, the appointing power must count how
many
years the commissioners have served because they may be appointed for
three years only so that the seven years maximum aggregate tenure will not
be
violated.
MR. DAVIDE: Would not the Commissioner believe that the appointing
authority may immediately violate this particular provision on the staggered
scheme, if
he will be given the discretion to determine the term for the extension of the
incumbents?
MR. FOZ: No, precisely; we are trying to put in that provision under the
Article on Transitory Provisions for an orderly implementation of the
staggered
system. The staggered system will start with the first appointment under this
new Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: What will happen if that proposal in the Transitory Provisions will
not be approved by the Committee?
MR. MONSOD. If the Gentleman takes a look at the first sentence of this
provision, it says that the appointment may be for a term of seven years
without
reappointment. We are only providing for such a move in the Transitory
Provisions. We are hoping that the Transitory Provisions will be approved
because it
is in coordination with this one.
MR. DAVIDE: I am willing to defer the presentation of my amendment and I
would move, Madam President, that even if the entire subdivision on the
COMELEC
may be approved on Second Reading, it may be reopened precisely to
accommodate the possibility of an amendment on this particular paragraph
in the event
that the Committee on Transitory Provisions will not approve the resolution
presented by Commissioner Foz on this matter.
MR. MONSOD: We are amenable to that.
THE PRESIDENT: The reservation is noted.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I propose the following amendment. On page 2, subparagraph
2, line 9 . . .
MR. DE LOS REYES: Anterior amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: On line 3, page 2, between the words appointed and
in, insert the phrase OR DESIGNATED. That has always been consistently
accepted
MR. MONSOD: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment has been accepted.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RODRIGO: On page 2, line 9 . . .
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I am sorry to interrupt again but I have
another anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong may proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: On page 2, line 7, I have the intention to delete the word
recalls unless the Committee can give the body the assurance that
recalls will
be instituted either in this Constitution or in laws passed by the legislature.
MR. MONSOD: The right to recall is actually contained in the Local
Government Code. So, we would prefer to leave this in case the COMELEC is
called upon to
administer such recall.
MR. MAAMBONG: It is indeed in the Local Government Code and with that
statement, I withdraw my intention to delete the word recalls.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Rodrigo now proceed and not be
interrupted?
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to ask first: Is there any other anterior
amendment? (Silence)
As I was saying, on page 2, line 9, delete the words be the sole, capitalize
the first letter of the word judge, and also delete the word of between
judge and all. So, the sentence will read: Judge all contests relating to
the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective provincial, city,
municipal and barangay officials.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment?
MR. FOZ: The Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may we offer an amendment to the
amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes may proceed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will the Commissioner please read again his
amendment?
MR. RODRIGO: Judge all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of all elective provincial, city, municipal, and barangay
officials.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The amendment will be on line 11. After the word
provincial, we add the words AND CITY OFFICIALS IN ITS ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION, AND
MUNICIPAL AND BARANGAY OFFICIALS, IN ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us first finish the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo
with respect to starting the sentence with the word Judge.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I withdraw my amendment in the meantime.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Will the proponent yield to some questions for clarification?
MR. RODRIGO: Certainly.
MR. DAVIDE: With the proposal of the Gentleman, would it mean that the
National Assembly, by law, will provide for any other court to be vested with
the
authority to decide cases relating to elections, returns and qualifications of
the elective officials enumerated in the subparagraph?
MR. RODRIGO: No, the reason I removed the words sole judge is that in
Section 10, it is provided that final decisions, orders or rulings of the
Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay
officials shall be final, unappealable and executory. So it is only in cases
involving municipal and barangay officials that the rulings of the COMELEC
are final and executory.
When we say the COMELEC is the sole judge of all contests, even for elective
provincial and city officials, it connotes that its decisions even in such
cases are final and executory. That is why I would like to remove those words
sole judge.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I understand that the phrase sole judge
would refer to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the COMELEC in these
cases. My
fear is, if we remove the word sole, it might open the possibility of the
National Assembly enacting a law vesting another tribunal with the authority
to
decide on all these cases, making these cases cognizable by two entities
with concurrent jurisdiction: one, the COMELEC; and the other, possibly an
ordinary court, which is not really the intention.
MR. RODRIGO: I see the point of the Gentleman. How about the phrase HAVE
SOLE JURISDICTION OVER all contests or EXERCISE SOLE JURISDICTION of all
contests?
Would that satisfy the Gentleman?
MR. DAVIDE: Probably instead of sole, we use the word EXCLUSIVE.
EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I accept the amendment to the amendment.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please read the amendment now?
MR. RODRIGO: HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER all contests relating to
the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective provincial, city,
municipal and barangay officials.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, before we rule on that motion, I ask that
I be allowed to expound my proposed amendment which could be affected
also by the
amendment proposed by Commissioner Rodrigo, considering that my
proposed amendment has been lengthily discussed in the Committee, and
the Committee has
acceded to this amendment. The amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo
inserted on the first line of line 9 would affect my proposed amendment. So, I
move to
defer consideration of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Rodrigo
with the indulgence of the Chair.
MR. RODRIGO: Is the amendment of the Gentleman an anterior amendment?
MR. MAAMBONG: It is not, Madam President. That is precisely why I am
moving to defer consideration of the proposed amendment of the
Gentleman.
MR. RODRIGO: But why should the consideration of my amendment be
dependent on the Gentlemans subsequent amendment?
MR. MAAMBONG: Because it would actually affect the whole jurisdictional
process, and to obviate the possibility of going back to the Gentlemans
amendment
if it will be approved.
MR. RODRIGO: What line is the amendment of the Commissioner?
MR. MAAMBONG: It is on line 11.
names as they are now under P.D. No. 129, otherwise we cannot make that
distinction. To change the name from regional trial court, let us say, back to
the court of first instance or municipal trial courts back to the old name,
municipal courts, will necessarily involve legislation because this was created
by P.D. No. 129. So, if a future legislation would change the names, it is
understood that the new names will apply mutatis mutandis to the name of
the court at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would like to adopt that answer.
MR. FOZ: So, it means that the legislature is not prevented from changing
the name of the regional trial court?
MR. REGALADO: Of course not, that is understood. How else can we
distinguish?
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for a few minutes.
It was 6:22 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:40 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: With the permission of the Committee and of the body, I
move for a reconsideration of the approval of the amendments which
Commissioner
Rodrigo, Commissioner de los Reyes and I proposed on Section 2 (2).
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: There is no substantial variance in the new proposed
amendment except in the words I will now mention after the word officials
on line 11,
page 2. After the word officials, put a comma (,) and insert the following
curtailment of their religious freedom. So, I suggest that this be deleted from
this portion.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this acceptable to the Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we be recognized for an amendment to
the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: I sympathize with the sentiments of Monsignor Bacani
regarding this matter. So, may I propose an amendment to the amendment
to delete the
entire phrase beginning with the word except and ending in the word
registered, then put a period (.) after the word Commission.
BISHOP BACANI: I would like to accede to that but the text, those which
seek to achieve their goals through violence and refuse to uphold this
Constitution, goes directly against the existence of the state. Hence, it
seems that they cannot be accredited as political parties.
The religions do not go directly contrary to the existence of the state, and
there will be a fundamental difference. Hence, I am sorry to say that I will
have to refuse the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: So we will just take the amendments by piece. May we have
the amendment of Commissioner Bacani first.
BISHOP BACANI: So, the sentence will now read:
Register after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations or
coalitions and accredit citizens arms of the Commission, except that those
which seek to achieve their goals through violence and refuse to uphold this
Constitution, shall not be registered.
THE PRESIDENT: May we know the position of the Committee on the
proposed amendment to delete the words religious sects on line 24?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: The word and on line 25 between violence and refuse
should be OR. I think Commissioner Bacani overlooked that.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, excuse me. It should be OR.
BISHOP BACANI: First of all, historically, never has it happened that the union
of church and state has been effected through political parties.
Second, any peoples organization which has an ideology can present itself
as a political party. For all practical purposes, a peoples organization with
an ideology is equivalent to a religious group which has its religious dogma,
from the political point of view. Hence, while we allow an ideologically
oriented political peoples organization, for example, to establish itself and
be accredited as a political party, no religious sect which is a peoples
organization sociologically is allowed that. There seems to be a
discrimination.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I reply to that statement, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman will please proceed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Madam President. On the other hand, if we allow, for
example, a majority religious group and it gains control of the government,
what happens to the minority religious group? That is all, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Bacani to delete on line 24 the words religious sects, or,
please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 4 votes in favor and 22 against; the amendment is lost.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, may I propose another amendment by
substitution?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman will please proceed.
BISHOP BACANI: Instead of religious sects, or the amendment by
substitution would say: CHURCHES, RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS, SECTS AND
THEIR EQUIVALENT AS
WELL AS ATHEISTIC OR AGNOSTIC GROUPS OR GROUPS DEDICATED TO THE
ABOLITION OF RELIGION. Thus, the provision would read: CHURCHES,
RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS,
SECTS AND THEIR EQUIVALENTS AS WELL AS ATHEISTIC OR AGNOSTIC
GROUPS OR GROUPS DEDICATED TO THE ABOLITION OF RELIGION, those
which seek to achieve their
MR. BROCKA: I just feel that coming up with atheistic and agnostic groups is
getting a little too far already.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we ask the proponent that we take the
amendment by piece, rather than by a whole phrase because it seems that
there are
two parts to it. The first part is an amplification of a religious sect and the
second part is an extension to atheistic or groups dedicated to the
abolition of religion, if I understand it correctly.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Is it possible to take it in two parts, Madam President?
BISHOP BACANI: I propose an amplification of sects to churches and religious
denominations because the word sects is actually very restrictive.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 7:06 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 7:25 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Pardon me for causing this confusion.
Let me first give the fundamental reason why I was objecting to this phrase.
If we put a provision saying that women are not allowed to be registered,
while at the same time criminals are also not allowed to be registered, the
women will certainly feel offended. So, religious denominations, sects or
groups dedicated to the abolition of religion shall not be registered; those
which seek to achieve their goals through violence or refuse to uphold this
Constitution shall also not be registered.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Will the proponent accept an amendment to insert the word
CHURCHES? When we mention denominations or sects only, sometimes it
gives the
impression that we are against the minority religious groups. If we include
the word CHURCHES, that will also include in the prohibition for registration
as a political party the Catholic Church or other churches. But if we limit it to
denominations or sects, I am afraid that we are directing the prohibition
only against the minority churches.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, I want to clarify for the benefit of all the
Commissioners the use of the term churches or religious denomination.
You
have your Filipino brothers in the South which constitute almost five million.
They occupy a huge territory in Mindanao up to Sulu, an island close to
Borneo. To them, especially among the less sophisticated and enlightened, a
church represents Christianity. And these five million Muslims would feel that
the constitutional provision may encroach on their religious beliefs and
rights. So, instead of using the word church which to them is the Catholic
Church, why do we not use a phraseology acceptable to all sects in the
Philippines, whether they are Catholic, atheist, Muslims, Hindus. There is
another
term which means orthodox? Why do we not generalize it? Let us use
religious denominations that would apply to the Christians, to Muslims, to
the medium
Muslims, and to the fanatical Muslims.
BISHOP BACANI: That was the original wording.
MR. PADILLA: There it says DENOMINATIONS, SECTS.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes, but the Gentleman preceded it with the word
CHURCHES.
MR. PADILLA: That is only an enumeration.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Vice-President, both of us are educated and enlightened.
To me, the phraseology does not matter. But we are concerned with the
conservative group who will use the word CHURCHES immediately with
Christianity. Therefore, let us not confuse them. If we want the whole
Mindanao or at
least the southern part of the Philippines, let us not use the word
MR. GASCON: Madam President, may the Committee request that we take a
vote because there is an objection.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to be clarified first. Is the word
SUBVERSION accepted by the Committee or not?
MR. FOZ: Madam President, because of the objection, we are reconsidering
and we are putting the issue of whether SUBVERSION should be included in
the
enumeration.
MR. GASCON: May I suggest that we first vote on Commissioner Bacanis
proposal, as amended, and then go to Commissioner de Castros proposal.
THE PRESIDENT: That is precisely the ruling of the Chair.
The body will first vote on the amendment of Commissioner Bacani, as
modified by the Committee. I think the two sentences are clear. Do we have
to repeat
them?
MR. FOZ: It will read this way: RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS AND SECTS shall
not be registered.
MR. REGALADO: We will first put that to a vote.
MR FOZ: Does the Chair want us to vote on that, first?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We will put this to a vote.
As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 26 votes in favor and none against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. REGALADO: What we accepted here in the second sentence is: those
which seek to achieve their goals through violence, UNLAWFUL MEANS OR
refuse to
uphold this Constitution shall LIKEWISE BE REFUSED REGISTRATION.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment on line
17 of page 2, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 17 votes in favor and 7 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: May we request that the Honorable Rosario Braid be recognized
for an amendment to Section 2, paragraph 9.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may I amend by addition of a phrase
on page 2, Section 2 (5), lines 22 and 23, which would read as follows:
Register,
after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations or coalitions
WHICH IN ADDITION TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS MUST PRESENT THEIR
PLATFORM OR PROGRAM
OF GOVERNMENT. . . The reason for this, as I explained earlier, is to insure
that we make it mandatory for all parties and citizens groups to define and
present a program of government before they are officially registered. I know
this is included in the Omnibus Election Code, but, nonetheless, we would
like to see it in the fundamental law.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee feels that all the conditions
for registration are really subject to legislation, but we suggest that it be
thrown to the body for a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please read the amendment again.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The amendment reads: Register after sufficient
publication, political parties, organizations or coalitions WHICH IN ADDITION
TO OTHER
appear
in this Article.
THE PRESIDENT: So, how will the sentence now read?
MR. MONSOD: Section 2 (4), lines 20 and 21, would now read; . . . ensuring
free, orderly, honest, peaceful and CREDIBLE elections.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, please
raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 25 votes in favor and none against; the amendment is
approved.
Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we request that Commissioner Davide
be recognized for an amendment to Section 2 (5)?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
The amendment would be within the amendment of Commissioner Bacani:
On line 26, after Constitution but before the words SHALL LIKEWISE BE
REFUSED
REGISTRATION, insert the following: OR WHOSE INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT CONFORM TO DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES OR WHICH
ARE SUPPORTED BY ANY FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT, INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, and place a comma (,).
THE PRESIDENT: That would be on line 26?
MR. GASCON: May I ask a question, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. GASCON: What does the Commissioner mean by DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLES?
MR. DAVIDE: This is just to be in line with the approved Preamble.
MR. GASCON: I was thinking, if they will be accredited on the basis of their
adherence to the Constitution, will that not be a sufficient ground for
maintaining that they have democratic principles? My problem is the
definition of democratic principles. Let us say, a right-to-center or fascist
party
would define democracy in one way or another; the communist party
would define democracy in another way and yet maintain that they uphold
democratic
principles. This is very vague. If we just maintain that they adhere to the
Constitution, would that not be sufficient?
MR. DAVIDE: If that is the proposal, I am agreeable to it, provided that after
the word uphold we insert the phrase AND ADHERE TO. The amended
portion
would read: . . . refuse to uphold AND ADHERE TO this Constitution. . .
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentlemans amendment would simply insert the words
AND ADHERE TO.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable to the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we want to know whether or not there is a
difference. Is it necessary to add more words? Does it add to the meaning?
MR. DAVIDE: Certainly, Madam President, because upholding may only be
the state of the mind, but adherence would demand actual adherence to
the
Constitution.
MR. FOZ: We accept, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the proposed amendment.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment which has been accepted
by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: The last portion of the amendment would read: OR WHICH ARE
SUPPORTED BY ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, INSTITUTION OR
ORGANIZATION.
THE PRESIDENT: Where will that amendment come in?
MR. DAVIDE: The phrase in Section 2 (5) will now read: to uphold AND
ADHERE TO this Constitution, OR WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY ANY FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT,
INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, . . .
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: May I ask a question of Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman will please proceed.
MR. OPLE: I wanted to call Commissioner Davides attention and that of the
Commission to a forthcoming proposed amendment already cleared with the
Committee which may rather be analogous to the last portion of his
amendment. This deals with financial contributions to political parties and
organization
of candidates from foreign governments and institutions related to elections,
constituting an act of interfering in national affairs, and may be an
additional ground for the deregistration of a political party in addition to
other penalties that may be prescribed by law. This is, of course, an
amendment proposed by Commissioners Garcia, Rosario Braid, Natividad, de
los Reyes, Jr., Regalado and Maambong. Can we ask that Commissioner
Davide allow
himself to be coopted as another coauthor of this proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: I would be very willing to be a coauthor of that, but that
particular amendment would refer to deregistration. In my proposal, it is the
registration itself and that proposed amendment has relevance to
contributions for election purposes. Here, it is support and aid, not only for
election
purposes probably but even in the initiation, organization and the
establishment of the party itself. So, both can be considered independently
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: I will support that proposal at the proper time.
MR. OPLE: Yes. Thank you very much.
MR. GASCON: May I ask a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
foreign
governments?
MR. DAVIDE: If it is just preliminary to the registration, it can be done, but
that particular party which has undergone some training program, if
supported by that particular group, may not be accepted for registration.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Would the Gentleman exempt from this category
international organizations like the UN, UNESCO, UNIDO, and other
international
organizations?
MR. DAVIDE.: It depends on the kind of training. If the training is really to
influence that political party and for that trainor to interfere in the
political affairs of the Philippines, that should really be banned.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Will the proponent kindly read the proposed amendment
again.
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment would read as follows, and this is
after Constitution under the Bacani amendment: OR WHICH ARE
SUPPORTED BY ANY
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION.
MR. RODRIGO: This question refers to the word organization let us say,
the Movement For Free Philippines in the United States whose members are
mostly
Filipinos (but I know that it has American members) and the NAM or the
Ninoy Aquino Movement, composed of Filipinos, most of whom are American
citizens but
whose hearts still beat for our country. Suppose a political party here is
supported by the NAM or the Movement for Free Philippines, would that come
under
that prohibition?
MR. DAVIDE: I would not consider it to be within the prohibition because, if it
is really for the Filipinos and this is an organization of Filipinos . . .
MR. RODRIGO: Not exclusively Filipinos.
MR. DAVIDE: The idea is, it is a foreign government, institution or
organization, but that institution or organization is basically Filipino.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, let us specifically examine and study the
platforms of that political party, the programs of government, and relate
them to
the contributions given by a foreign government, a foreign organization or a
foreign institution. If it could be perceived from an analysis of these facts
that it is the intention of the foreign government or the institution or
organization to promote the political aspirations of that party to be
considered
in the political field, then it is obvious that the contribution was not really to
help it as a labor organization but as a political party.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that is sufficient.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Will the distinguished sponsor consider the elimination of the
words INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION and just limit it to SUPPORTED BY
ANY
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT?
May I explain briefly, Madam President. When Congress passed Republic Act
No. 1700 on antisubversion, it mentioned the support of an alien power.
When Mr.
Marcos issued his Presidential Decree No. 885 or the Revised Subversion Act,
it was also limited to assistance, open or covert, and support of a foreign
power. Thereafter, Mr. Marcos issued his Presidential Decree No. 1736 which
included the open or covert support from a foreign source. I had occasion to
criticize this decree because it would widen the grounds for subversion if
there were some support from a foreign source, meaning, any institution or
organization, some of which were mentioned by Commissioner Rodrigo, like
the Ninoy Aquino Movement, the Movement for Free Philippines or any other
private
institution or organization.
I think what we should be careful about is that no political party will be
supported or will look for support from a foreign government.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I see the point.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Davide accept the proposal of
Commissioner Padilla?
MR. DAVIDE: I will accept the amendment of Commissioner Padilla with the
expectation that the Ople et al amendment alluded to earlier by
Commissioner Ople
regarding the grounds for their registration of political parties will be limited
to a foreign government.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we would like the body to vote on the
proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide, as modified by Commissioner Padilla? (Silence) The
Chair hears
none; the amendment, as amended, is approved.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may we request that Commissioner Ople be
recognized for an amendment to Section 2 (5).
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam President.
I speak for the other proponents Commissioners Garcia, Rosario Braid,
Natividad, de los Reyes, Jr., and Maambong. The amendment consists of
adding a new
paragraph and inserting this immediately after paragraph 5 of Section 2,
page 2, and shall read as follows: THE COMMISSION MAY DEREGISTER ANY
POLITICAL
PARTY DETERMINED TO HAVE COMMITTED THE ACTS PROHIBITED IN THE
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SECTION. If the Committee chooses merely to add
this to the existing
Section 2 (5) instead of creating a new section for economy of space, I think
the proponents will not mind.
MR. REGALADO: How would that go again, Commissioner Ople?
MR. OPLE: The additional paragraph shall read: THE COMMISSION MAY
DEREGISTER ANY POLITICAL PARTY DETERMINED TO HAVE COMMITTED THE
ACTS PROHIBITED IN THE
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SECTION. If it is not the immediately preceding
section, then it should be the acts prohibited in this section.
MR. REGALADO: May we seek a clarification from Commissioner Ople? In the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide, it was limited to support by
any
foreign government. In the proposed amendment which the Commissioner
intended to be inserted as paragraphs 6 and 7, he also mentioned financial
support
from foreign governments and institutions.
MR. OPLE: May I read the whole section for greater clarity, Madam President.
There is a slightly amended version. So, may I read it, with the leave of the
Chair. The proposed Section 7 is: FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL
PARTIES AND ORGANIZATIONS OR CANDIDATES FROM FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS RELATED TO ELECTIONS CONSTITUTE AN
ACT OF INTERFERENCE IN NATIONAL
AFFAIRS AND MAY BE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR THE DEREGISTRATION
OF A POLITICAL PARTY IN ADDITION TO OTHER PENALTIES THAT MAY BE
PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
MR. REGALADO: That is right. But the amendment Commissioner Davide only
speaks of political parties which are supported by any foreign government.
The
words institutions or organizations were deleted.
MR. OPLE: Yes, may I clarify that the institutions here should be read in the
context of foreign governments. But I think the commission should be
informed
that foreign governments in many situations, especially where malice is
intended, do not contribute as such to political parties and candidates. That
is
what the journalists call a laundering process. After developing a country
recipient of such contributions, the contributions may not actually bear the
stamp of the foreign government; there is an attempt to conceal it and to put
it under the logos of institutions or organizations funded by these
governments in sometimes open and at other times clandestine way. And so,
just for purposes of determining the intent behind this new paragraph, the
institutions should be seen in the context of foreign governments, as well.
MR. REGALADO: That is right.
MR. OPLE: Except that various disguises are sometimes attempted precisely
to conceal the governmental source of such contributions.
MR. REGALADO: In regard to the Commissioners position on INSTITUTIONS
AND ORGANIZATIONS in connection with foreign governments, and
Commissioner
Davides limiting it only to foreign governments, could he reconcile his
position with Commissioner Davides with respect to the phraseology?
MR. OPLE: Yes, this is a more explicit principle, Madam President. It is being
stated as an important principle of national sovereignty and is
incidentally, being linked to the registration process.
MR. REGALADO: Before the Committee answers, may we ask Commissioner
Davide whether he would want the reinstatement of the words
INSTITUTIONS AND
ORGANIZATIONS after FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS since the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Ople would like to refer to those acts.
MR. OPLE: Madam President. I think we are in a position now to effect some
reconcilement. I would like to tell the Committee that instead of the words
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS we will say FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR AGENCIES.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I agree to that, and there is really no inconsistency even if we
retain the word INSTITUTIONS because this is in reference to the
deregistration not the act of registration.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, the Chair does not see any inconsistency between
the two amendments.
MR. REGALADO: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment of Commissioner Davide prohibits the
registration of such an organization, while that of Commissioner Ople refers
to one that
has already been registered but that now will be deregistered of these
particular acts mentioned. Am I correct?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, there are now two proposed amendments. Can
they be treated as a single amendment for purposes of the Committees
action?
MR. REGALADO: How will Commissioner Davides amendment now read?
MR. DAVIDE: The same as approved.
what will happen here? Any political organization or party may be charged by
anybody that there was an offer to it of a financial contribution which is a
ground for the cancellation of the registration of that political party.
Hence, for the consummation of the offense, the act of acceptance must be
the qualifying element.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we suggest something.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman will please proceed.
MR. MONSOD: We were wondering if Commissioner Ople were willing to
cancel the phrase CONSTITUTE AN ACT OF INTERFERENCE IN NATIONAL
AFFAIRS AND. If we
cancel that phrase, we would have no syntax problems and we will just say:
ACCEPTANCE OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS RELATED TO ELECTIONS FROM
FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS BY POLITICAL PARTIES, ORGANIZATIONS
OR CANDIDATES SHALL BE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR THE
CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF A
POLITICAL PARTY OR ORGANIZATION IN ADDITION TO OTHER . . .
MR. OPLE: Madam President, that will settle the problem of syntax but it will
take away a very important principle embodied in this paragraph, which is
that financial contributions of this nature constitute an act of interference in
national affairs. I think this is a very important principle to enunciate
in a Constitution, one of the strong features of which is a commitment to
national sovereignty.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what would the Commissioner suggest?
MR. OPLE: I am looking for a way of absorbing the word ACCEPTANCE of
Commissioner Davide without destroying the syntax of this paragraph. Why
do we not
say: FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
OF CANDIDATES FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS RELATED
TO ELECTIONS CONSTITUTE
AN ACT OF INTERFERENCE IN NATIONAL AFFAIRS AND WHEN ACCEPTED MAY
BE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR THE CANCELLATION OF A POLITICAL PARTY,
IN ADDITION TO OTHER
PENALTIES THAT MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW. Will that meet the punctilious
requirements of Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: More than enough, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the Committee?
AND OPEN
MULTIPARTY SYSTEM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EVOLVE.
MR. OPLE: It does not sound very appropriate at that point. A free and open
party system can become a two-party system in the end through the free
choice
of the people. But, maybe, that reservation can be met again, with the leave
of the Chair, if we say: A FREE AND OPEN PARTY SYSTEM WITHOUT
RESTRICTION ON
THE NUMBER OF PARTIES SHALL BE ALLOWED TO EVOLVE. Will that meet the
proponents requirement?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think we would like a multiparty system but a free and
open party system could be a two-party system.
MR. OPLE: We cannot presume what the people will choose in a free and
open party system. They may want a two-party system later on. I think the
principle
of a multiparty system is very abundantly met by this definition of a freeand open-party system.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the proposed amendment again,
Commissioner Ople?
MR. OPLE: The amendment shall read: A FREE AND OPEN PARTY SYSTEM
SHALL BE ALLOWED TO EVOLVE ACCORDING TO THE FREE CHOICE OF THE
PEOPLE, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE. This is meant to precede Section 5 in the draft
Article of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: The Committee accepts that amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the amendment, as amended?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment, as amended, is approved.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I would like to propose an amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I propose to delete from that accepted
amendment the word and between free and open, and then to insert
groups that may not be receiving support from foreign governments but on
their own, espouse allegiance to foreign governments. We would like it to be
very
categorical that we shall be prohibiting these political organizations from
registering.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: In the paragraph, there is reference to the phrase uphold and
adhere to the Constitution. If that is in the first premise, then the second
point will not follow. If they adhere to the Constitution, they cannot adhere to
any other country. My point is, the proposal may not be necessary since we
uphold the first principle that they should adhere and uphold the
Philippine Constitution.
MR. VILLACORTA: I understand that, Madam President. But we would like to
be sure because there may be several interpretations to that provision. I
know
what the Gentleman is referring to that dual allegiance is inimical to
national interest. But that in itself might be interpreted later on as
insufficient reason for disallowing a political organization from registering.
So, if we made it specific here that we are not allowing the registration of
religious denominations and those that receive support from foreign
governments, why should we not be equally clear in disallowing those that
espouse
allegiance to foreign governments?
MR. GASCON: My point is, they should first uphold and espouse and adhere
to the Philippine Constitution. If they do so, they cannot espouse allegiance
to
any other country.
MR. VILLACORTA: But, Madam President, as I said, the stipulation about
upholding and adhering is not categorical enough. Advocates of statehood,
for
example, can always say that consistent with the freedom of expression and
freedom of belief guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, they may still espouse
allegiance to foreign governments.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear from the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we regret that we cannot accept the
amendment but we also would like to say that our interpretation of the
requirement that
those who refuse to uphold or adhere are not qualified to be registered, also
includes those who espouse allegiance to another country.
MR. VILLACORTA: May I just reply to that. If that is so, then we need not also
mention espousal of violence as a disqualification.
MR. MONSOD: That is already a provision, Commissioner. I think we are
dealing with the Gentlemans amendment. Our response to the amendment
is, we regret
we cannot accept it for the reasons mentioned.
MR. VILLACORTA: May I move that we vote on this issue.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Villacorta to add THOSE WHICH ESPOUSE ALLEGIANCE TO
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
as an additional ground for cancellation of registration, please raise their
hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 8 votes in favor and 13 against; the proposed amendment
is lost.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we request that Commissioner
Maambong be recognized for an amendment on Section 2 (6).
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I really wonder how the Chairman and
the members of the Committee are able to stay as strong after all this time. I
am
rather tired and I can understand why some of our colleagues who insisted
that we go on overtime are no longer with us. Nevertheless, we will just have
to
continue the march. So that the Committee will not feel threatened, Madam
President, my amendment is not very consequential; it is only a perfecting
amendment.
On page 2, line 27, Section 2 (6), this particular provision reads: On a
verified complaint or on its own, file petitions in court for inclusion or
exclusion of voters from the registry of qualified voters.
The Chair will notice that there is an alternative use of the words for
inclusion or exclusion. The problem, Madam President, is that, if we read
this
individually using the words for inclusion, it would read for inclusion of
voters from, and that is ungrammatical. We do not include voters from but
we include voters in. And so, I suggest and I so move that on line 28, we
delete the words or exclusion and the word from on line 29. Instead, we
substitute the phrase IN OR EXCLUSION FROM so that this provision would
now read: On a verified complaint or on its own, file petitions in court for
inclusion of voters IN OR EXCLUSION FROM the registry of qualified voters.
I move for the approval of this amendment, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: The amendment is accepted, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none: the amendment is approved.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, since this is a matter of perfecting
amendments, I propose to add after the phrase On a verified complaint or
on its own
the word INITIATIVE and a comma (,) after, to make it more legalistic. The
amendment would read: On a verified complaint or on its own INITIATIVE,
file .
. .
MR. MONSOD: The amendment is accepted, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. REGALADO: Before we go further, Madam President, may I just move
backwards a little to lines 12 and 13, Section 2 (10) which says: Perform
such other
functions as may be provided by law. I move that this be deleted because it
is already included in the Common Provisions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we take the backward direction of
Commissioner Regalado, and call on Commissioner de los Reyes for a
proposed amendment to
Section 2 ( 7) which we understand has already been approved and accepted
by the Committee.
MR. REGALADO: It is not putting the penalty in the rules, but the law itself
may provide the penalty. For instance, the law may say that any violation of
this provision of law or of any rule or regulation promulgated by the
Commission pursuant to the authority therein conferred shall be punishable
by
_______.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, the penalty itself is in the law, not in the
rules and regulations. With that understanding, Madam President, I will
withdraw
my amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, there are no more proponents for
amendments, so, can we move on to the voting on Second Reading?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, let us move first to close the period of amendments.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, before we move on to a vote on Second
Reading, I recommend that we check whether we have a quorum or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a quorum?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Yes, Madam President, we have a quorum. There
are 25 Members present.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a quorum.
Is there any objection to close the period of amendments? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 521
ON SECOND READING
(Article on the Commission on Elections)
MR. SUAREZ: I move that we vote on Proposed Resolution No. 521, as
amended, on Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now proceed to vote on Proposed Resolution No. 521
regarding the Commission on Elections, as amended.
As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand )
The results show 25 votes in favor and none against.
Proposed Resolution No. 521 on the Commission on Elections, as amended, is
approved on Second Reading. (Applause)
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Next in the agenda of the Unfinished Business is the
continuation of the motion to reconsider approval on Second Reading of
Proposed Resolution
No. 322.
I would like to request that we discuss this motion for reconsideration first
thing tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a motion to adjourn?
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, I move to adjourn until tomorrow at ninethirty in the morning. cdrep
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the
morning.
It was 9:08 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
R.C.C. NO. 32
Thursday, July 17, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:40 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Florenz D. Regalado.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. REGALADO: Almighty Father, You have called us to be one people,
inhabitants of numerous islands, speaking diverse languages, heirs to
various
traditions, and yet sharing a common faith in You, the one God, creator of
heaven and earth, and aspiring for a life of freedom, justice and peace.
In this land You have so graciously blessed, You have brought together
Christian and Muslim and others who also believe in Your divine presence
and
unfailing providence.
We ask You to be with us in grace and power as we strive to forge the unity
of our nation and create a new life for our people.
Enlighten us with Your wisdom, strengthen us with Your power, purify us with
Your grace, as we endeavor to set down in writing the basic law of our land,
so that it may be a living sign of Your justice and righteousness among us,
and a means for making Your salvation a reality for all our people.
We make our prayer through Christ our Lord. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Aquino
Present
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present
Ople
Present *
Bengzon
Present *
Padilla
Present *
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present
Bernas
Present
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Present
Brocka
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Calderon
Present
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Present
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present *
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present *
Sarmiento
Present *
Foz
Present *
Suarez
Present
Garcia
Present
Sumulong
Present
Gascon
Present *
Tadeo
Present *
Guingona
Present *
Tan
Present *
Jamir
Present
Tingson
Present *
Laurel
Present *
Treas
Present
Lerum
Present *
Uka
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villacorta
Present
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the
previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved. The Secretary-General will read the Reference of
Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications, the President
making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines signed by Messrs.
Jeremias U. Montemayor, Democrito T. Mendoza and Ernesto F. Herrera,
submitting
its Position Paper on the Draft of the Philippine Constitution, Part II.
(Communication No. 215 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Ramon R.J. Jamasali of Finance Ministry Intelligence Bureau,
proposing provisions on the civil service.
(Communication No. 216 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Pedro O. Valdez, 1971 Constitutional Convention Delegate,
reiterating his position on the superiority of the parliamentary system over
the
presidential system of constitutional government.
(Communication No. 217 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Executive.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 9:49 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 9:50 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 486
(Article on Bill of Rights)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: I move that we consider Committee Report No. 23 on Proposed
Resolution No. 486 as reported out by the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of
Rights
and Obligations and Human Rights.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 486 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary General will read only the title of the
proposed resolution without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole
text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 486, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
(The following is the whole text of the substitute resolution per C.R. No. 23.)
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 23
AS TO UNFETTERED PARTICIPATION
IN THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.
Introduced by Hon. Rosario Braid.
Note: Partially incorporated in Section 6.
Proposed Resolution No. 169, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUAL VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT.
Introduced by Hon. Tadeo and Tan.
Note: Substantially incorporated in Sections 1, 3, 5, 14 and 21.
Proposed Resolution No. 175, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE INTO THE BILL OF RIGHTS A PROVISION
RECOGNIZING AND DEFENDING THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE UNBORN HUMAN
EMBRYO.
Introduced by Hon. Quesada, Romulo, Sarmiento, Villegas, Colayco and
Bengzon, Jr.
Note: Partially incorporated in Section 1.
Proposed Resolution No. 184, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS THAT A FOREIGNER WHO IS
PERSECUTED BY HIS COUNTRY BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS SHOULD
BE GIVEN ASYLUM IN
THE PHILIPPINES AND THAT EXTRADITION OF FOREIGNERS FOR POLITICAL
OFFENSES SHALL NOT BE GRANTED.
Introduced by Hon. Nolledo.
Note: Referred to the Committee on Preamble, National Territory and
Declaration of Principles.
Proposed Resolution No. 191, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE NEW
CONSTITUTION THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE DETAINED BECAUSE OF HIS
POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS.
SECTION 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety
requires it.
SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
SECTION 17. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law.
SECTION 18. All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or may be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
SECTION 19. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet
the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
SECTION 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
SECTION 21. It shall be the duty of every official investigating the
Commission of an offense to inform the person under investigation of his
rights to
remain silent and to have counsel. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one who is competent and independent.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel. No force, violence, threat or intimidation shall be used against him.
Secret detention places and incommunicado detentions are prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
The Legislature shall enact a law punishing any violation of this section.
Compensation for and rehabilitation of victims of tortures or similar
practices, and of their families, shall be provided by law.
SECTION 22. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment, or the death penalty inflicted. Death penalty already
imposed
shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua.
SECTION 23. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.
SECTION 24. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that the sponsor, Commissioner Bernas,
be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER BERNAS
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I am taking up the sponsorship in the absence or in the
lateness of our Chairman, Commissioner Laurel; but before I proceed, may I
ask the
other members of the Committee to come to my assistance. There are four
empty seats here. I will feel free to call on the various members, if questions
need to be answered by them.
The resolution before the body is Proposed Resolution No. 486. I hope
everyone has a copy of it. It is on the Bill of Rights. I shall not attempt to
explain every single section of the Bill of Rights, because each of them can
be the subject of several full-dress lectures. Besides, no matter how lengthy
the explanation will be, I am sure there will be other questions. We will
reserve the details for these in the process of answering questions.
I will, therefore, limit my sponsorship remarks, first, to some general
reflections, and, second, to a brief explanation of the changes that have
been
introduced changes, that is, over the 1935 and 1973 versions of the Bill of
Rights. After these, we can proceed.
strict sense the former are not rights which operate without implementing
legislation, but rather they are more properly claims or demands on the
state;
they need implementing action by the state. Without the implementing
action, they generally cannot be enforced against anybody by judicial action.
So I repeat: these new social and economic rights are not the principal
concern of the proposal of the Committee. We do not wish to steal the
thunder of
the Committee on Social Justice, although in certain instances where certain
economic rights, claims on the state, are intimately related to strict rights,
we put them in also.
For a brief rundown of the innovations the Committee proposes: On Section I,
the phrase fertilized ovum on line 10 may I ask everyone to turn his
report to the page with the numbered lines might sound jarring to the
legal ear. But if we explain the intent, one might be able to coin a more
felicitous phrase than fertilized ovum.
The intent of this addition is to preclude the Supreme Court from following
the United States doctrine which does not begin to weigh the life of the
unborn
against that of the mother until the fetus has reached a viable stage of
development. In American doctrine, during the first six months of pregnancy,
the
only requirement for allowing abortion is that it will not be harmful to the
mother. It is only after the sixth month that the life of the fetus begins to
be weighed against the life of the mother.
The innovation does not say that from the first moment the sperm and the
egg shake hands, human life is already present, much less does it say that at
that
moment, a soul is infused; nor does the innovation say that the right to life of
the fertilized ovum must prevail over the life of the mother all the time.
All that the innovation says is that from the moment of fertilization, the ovum
should be treated as life whose worth must be weighed against the life of
the woman, not necessarily saying that they are of equal worth.
Section 2 is the same as the old Constitution.
The provision on Section 3 reverts to the 1935 formula by eliminating the
1973 phrase or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law,
and
also adds the word PERSONALLY on line 18. In other words, warrants under
this proposal can be issued only by judges. I think one effect of this would be
that, as soon as the Constitution is approved, the PCGG will have no
Section 15 reads:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in
cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
What this has done is to drop insurrection and imminent danger of
insurrection, invasion or rebellion as grounds for the suspension of the
privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus. This is a harmonization with the report of the
Committee on the Executive and said Committee goes into more details
about this.
Sections 16 and 17 preserve existing provisions.
Section 18 reads:
All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or may
be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. Excessive bail
shall not be required.
Since the report recommends that we drop the death penalty, this provision
is harmonized with the dropping of the death penalty. In other words, all
offenses are bailable now, before conviction, by sufficient sureties.
In addition to bail, there is an explicit recognition here of recognizance as an
instrument for temporary release as may be provided by law. The details on
how recognizance can be obtained or when it is applicable can be provided
by law.
On Section 19, we have preserved the provision of the 1973 Constitution. It
allows trial in absentia but only on condition that the accused was present at
arraignment. That is the absolute requirement.
Section 20 provides that: No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself. We decided to make the self-incrimination clause a section
by
itself, separate from the rest of the old Section 22. And the provision of the
1973 Constitution which incorporates the Miranda Doctrine has been
reworded
to make it speak in more positive terms. It says:
It shall be the duty of every official investigating the commission of an
offense to inform the person under investigation of his rights to remain silent
and to have counsel.
The old provision merely declared that he has the right to be informed of the
two rights. Now, a duty is imposed on the investigating officer. These rights
can- not be waived, except in writing and in the presence of a counsel.
Incidentally, we spent the most time perhaps on this Article because of
reflections on the experience under martial law. And many of these
reflections are
an effort really to prevent the reoccurrence of things which happened during
martial law. His rights cannot be waived, except in writing and in the
presence of a counsel. No force, violence, threat or intimidation shall be used
against him. Then, secret detention places and incommunicado detentions
are
prohibited.
The second paragraph which reads: Any confession or admission the
word admission is added to confession obtained in violation of this or
the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
It is a repetition of the exclusionary rule:
The legislature shall enact a law punishing violation of this section.
Compensation for and rehabilitation of victims of tortures or similar
practices, and
of their families, shall be provided by law.
As we can see, these last two sentences are not self-executory, but they are
intimately related to the previous sentences.
On Section 22, on penalties:
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment, or the death penalty inflicted. Death penalty already imposed
shall be
commuted to reclusion perpetua.
My recollection on this is that there was a division in the Committee not on
whether the death penalty should be abolished or not, but rather on whether
the abolition should be done by the Constitution in which case it cannot be
restored by the legislature or left to the legislature. The majority voted
for the constitutional abolition of the death penalty. And the reason is that
capital punishment is inhuman for the convict and his family who are
traumatized by the waiting, even if it is never carried out. There is no
evidence that the death penalty deterred deadly criminals, hence, life should
not
be destroyed just in the hope that other lives might be saved. Assuming
mastery over the life of another man is just too presumptuous for any man.
The fact
that the death penalty as an institution has been there from time
immemorial should not deter us from reviewing it. Human life is more
valuable than an
institution intended precisely to serve human life. So, basically, this is the
summary of the reasons which were presented in support of the
constitutional
abolition of the death penalty.
Section 23 preserves the old provision on double jeopardy.
Section 24 expands the 1973 provision by including quasi-judicial bodies
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies. In putting this in,
Commissioner Lerum had in mind, principally but not exclusively, labor
courts and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person
by reason
of poverty. That aspect, the matter of giving adequate legal assistance, is
something which is not self-executory. It needs implementing legislation.
With these, I end my presentation of the report on the Bill of Rights. And I
repeat my appeal to anybody in the Committee to come and join me here.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: For purposes of our interpellation and clarification on debates,
perhaps it would be best to use the version which has numbered lines.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: May I ask Chairman Laurel to come forward.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Laurel and the other members of the
Committee are requested by Commissioner Bernas to come forward.
FR. BERNAS: We are a committee of about 15, but even those who are not
here should not feel safe.
MR. NOLLEDO: The pertinent authority, like the President, may say that the
national interest demands that there should be no exercise of the right over
records involving foreign loans as has been the case. It seems to me that the
citizens are denied the right to know what are the real terms and conditions
entered into by our authorities with foreign countries. So, I am thinking that if
one interprets this as referring to limitations on the substance, the
right will have no meaning. It would become practically useless.
FR. BERNAS: Personally, I am not speaking for the Committee. I would have
no serious objection to limiting this to procedure. But, perhaps, it is a matter
which should be discussed at least on matters of national security. But, of
course, that phrase is used sometimes to cover a multitude of sins and
abuses.
MR. NOLLEDO: This is not actually a question. I am addressing this to all the
members of the Committee, including the venerable Chairman, because I
had two
resolutions and I felt aggrieved that the provisions do not appear for reasons
that I think are inappropriate. And I would like the Committee to
reconsider, if possible, so that instead of reasoning out lengthily here for the
inclusion of my resolution, the Committee may study these. The first
resolution runs like this: No law shall be passed abridging the right of every
peace-loving citizen to bear arms. This is similar to the Davide resolution
because it seems to me that the reason is that we might be converted into
Western cowboys in the country. I think that is an insult to the Filipino
capacity and intelligence. It seems to me that those who have arms are the
criminals.
FR. BERNAS: And I can assure the Commissioner that that is not my reason.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think it is the reason of the Chairman according to the
papers.
And in the second resolution I am just mentioning the resolution for
reconsideration and Father Bernas might say that this pertains to the domain
of
legislation I recommended the adoption of a provision that is found in the
constitutions of most countries of Europe, particularly the West Germany
Constitution and, correct me if I am wrong, the Constitution of Italy, that the
state guarantees the right of asylum to foreigners who are denied basic
freedoms in their countries and that these foreigners shall not be extradited.
There are foreigners in countries with repressive regimes who are denied
basic freedoms the freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, et
cetera and if they ask for asylum in our country, the sponsor said that is
only
a matter of legislation and should not be included in the Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: The position taken by the majority of those who voted in favor
of this provision is that means other than the death penalty should be used
for
the prevention of crime.
MR. RAMA: What about Commissioner Bernas? Does he feel very strongly
that this should be included in the Constitution, thus shackle the hands of
the
legislature?
FR. BERNAS: My own perception is that we should include this in the
Constitution because my fear is, if we do not do anything about this in a
constitution,
the Legislature will not do anything about it either.
MR. RAMA: For instance, in introducing this particular section, did
Commissioner Bernas consider the violence and the death penalties imposed
by the past
regime or the violation of human rights and this probably influenced his
thinking into abolishing the death penalty?
FR. BERNAS: The main thing which persuades me is the respect which we
must have for life. If I were a Justice of the Supreme Court who must affirm
the
death penalty, I would probably find it agonizing to be able to impose death,
because I would see myself as too inadequate to be responsible for the total
snuffing out of the life of an individual.
MR. RAMA: But the sponsor agrees with me that death penalty here is
imposed by constituted authority and, as a matter of fact, governments send
people by
the thousands to death. In war, for instance, they are justified.
FR. BERNAS: War is a different thing from the execution of a death penalty,
because war is a matter of defending the nation against people who are
actually
assaulting lives. In our particular case, we have the situation of a person who
is already in custody and who is in no position to assault the life of
anybody. The argument used is, his life is taken away precisely to prevent
not him but others from assaulting the lives of citizens. But, as I said, there
seems to be no adequate evidence that such a deterrent works.
MR. RAMA: In stating that there is no evidence that the death penalty would
discourage crime, would the sponsor agree with me that perhaps the
perception
of people is more important than the theories or the opinions of experts in
the sense that it might have been necessary or more important for the
Committee
to find out or to get a survey of what the people really think about this death
penalty, whether it is discouraging or encouraging people to commit crime?
FR. BERNAS: I would agree with the Commissioner, if the theories were not
based on perceptions, but the theories are themselves based on perceptions.
MR. RAMA: But there has not been any survey that the sponsor knows of
regarding the perception of people, whether this discourages or encourages
crime.
FR. BERNAS: Commissioner Garcia would like to say a few words on that.
MR. GARCIA: Actually, there has been authoritative studies done by Amnesty
International and also by the United Nations in 1980. One source that I would
like to quote is the study that Amnesty International presented last year
which states that the comparison of crime rates in different countries that
have
retained or abolished the death penalty does not indicate that the threat of
execution has been effective in preventing capital crimes. Studies on the
death penalty indicate that changes in crime rates depend on many factors,
apart from the existence of use of the death penalty. In fact, this brings out
the conditions in society which, very often, lead to the commission of the
crime and, therefore, enables a more modern approach towards penology
which
realizes that one has to look into the conditions which breed the crime and,
at the same time, look into the fact that a man who has committed a crime
has
to be reformed through a more humane penal system. And I think, therefore,
the stress and the view that both the person in jail and those in society take
about crime is, in a sense, changed. The approach toward this problem
becomes more humane.
MR. RAMA: In other words, we are really using theories to support this
provision.
Thank you.
MR. LAUREL: Mga kasamahan, with the permission of my colleagues, I would
like to express my support of the proposal to do away with the death penalty.
In
the same way, alam ninyo, hindi ako natutuwa sa doktor na ayaw ibigay sa
Panginoong Diyos ang buhay ng isang pasyenteng gusto na Niyang kunin.
They play
God sometimes. I know of the case of a patient who could not hear, parang
Committee
under the leadership of our learned President of the Ateneo de Manila, our
colleague, the Honorable J.G. Bernas, of the Society of Jesus. Kaya
pinasasalamatan ko siya at ang aking mga kasama dahil noon ay hindi ako
pinakinabangang gasino at hindi ako nakialam dito sa Bill of Rights na ito.
Nakasali lamang ako doon sa paggawa ng duties and obligations of the
citizen na siya pa namang pinagkasunduan na huwag nang isama sa
Saligang Batas. Allow
me now to talk briefly about this matter.
Madam President, it is axiomatic that for every right there is a corresponding
responsibility. This is a principle understood in every civilized society
and embodied in Article V of the Constitution of 1973. Under the 1935
charter, which had a bill of rights but no bill of responsibility, many people
felt
that they could enjoy their liberties without discharging the obligations that
were part and parcel of such liberties.
I imagine it was for the purpose of correcting that attitude that the framers
of the 1973 Constitution saw fit to incorporate therein an enumeration of the
duties and obligations of the citizens. The purpose, I suppose, was to impress
upon the nation the undeniable fact that rights are inseparable from
responsibilities.
The trouble, however, is that in specifying such responsibilities, the authors
succeeded only in excluding many others no less important than those
mentioned. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, or to put it in more
colloquial terms, the more particularized, the less said.
After considering all these facts, your Committee has decided not to include
Article V of the 1973 Constitution in the fundamental law we are now
framing.
Perhaps we may incorporate elsewhere in the document the reminder that
every right entails a concomitant responsibility to discharge it with due
regard to
the rights of others and subject to reasonable requirements and restrictions
in the common interest. This can be incorporated in the Article on General
Provisions.
Our thinking is that a separate article on the duties and obligations of the
citizen is not really necessary as long as it is emphasized somewhere and in
general terms only that ones rights can become more meaningful if they are
enjoyed with a proper respect for the rights of others. We are therefore
proposing the nonretention of Article V of the 1973 charter in the new
Constitution.
in the Philippines. But they have made studies showing by their statistics
that the actual execution does act, at least for the time being, to diminish
the commission of offenses especially against persons, like murder.
I would like to read a short passage on that point. This is from the book of Mr.
David P. Phillips, entitled:
Strong and Weak Research Designs for Detecting the Impact of Capital
Punishment on Homicide.
As noted earlier, it is desirable to examine daily or weekly homicide statistics
in order to detect short-term effects of capital punishment.
He is referring to most statistics which cite only yearly figures. Now he
continues:
A search of the vital statistics collections of the library of Congress, the
National Library of Medicine, and the British Museum revealed only one
jurisdiction, England, that both practiced capital punishment and published
weekly homicide statistics over a given period of time. The weekly homicide
statistics for London from 1858 to 1921 were available for study.
A list of highly publicized English executions for the same period was
generated from a standard encyclopedia of notorious murderers. Table 2 lists
these
executions, ranked by the amount of publicity each received, together with
the number of homicides before, during, and after the week of its execution.
The
week in which the execution was publicized in the newspapers will
henceforth be termed the execution week or the experimental period.
The week just
before the experimental period and the week just after will be termed the
control period. It is evident that London in its control period is nearly
identical to that of London in the corresponding experimental period, except
for the presence of an execution in the experimental period. Thus, this
procedure for choosing controls avoids the problem of dissimilar
experimental and controlled periods encountered in other study designs.
Starting on the hypothesis, Mr. Phillips concludes that publicized executions
produced a brief decline in homicides, that the more publicity given to the
execution story, the more homicides decline. However, after graphing his
findings, Mr. Phillips found that the dip in homicides just after execution is
cancelled out by an equally large rise in homicides soon afterwards.
Mr. Ernest Van Den Haag, however, gives us a new evidence on the deterrent
effect of capital punishment. In his article, Mr. Van Den Haag cited the
the provisions is that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus does not suspend the right to bail.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, the Committee will have no serious objection if we
incorporate the same concept in the Article on the Bill of Rights because I
think
it should properly be placed here rather than in the provisions on the
Executive?
FR. BERNAS: I personally would have no objection to that, so that then we
could relinquish it or take it away from that Article.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes.
I notice that Section 22 of the committee report speaks of excessive fines,
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment, et cetera. This provision refers to
punishment after conviction. May I know why there is no provision for
inhuman, degrading and cruel treatment before conviction and during
detention since
that is one of the problems of prisoners? They are already practically being
punished inhumanly while under detention. Would the Commissioner
consider an
amendment in the future that will cover such matter?
FR. BERNAS: Commissioner Sarmiento would like to say something We
consider that adequately covered in Section 22. We are talking about
penalties which
presuppose conviction. But Section 21 deals with situations before a penalty
is imposed, even before a trial begins, or even before charges are filed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, but there is nothing in Section 21 which says that
detention prisoners shall not be subjected to cruel, degrading or inhuman
treatment.
.FR. BERNAS: Lines 15, 16 and 17 state: No force, violence, threat or
intimidation shall be used against him.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Is this already covered or does that refer only to
obtaining confession?
FR. BERNAS: The reason we separated Section 20 from Section 21 is that we
want Section 21 to be more general than just for the purpose of preventing
involuntary confessions. The Commissioner will notice that Section 20 is the
general statement against self-incrimination. We have separated it as an
article by itself so as to prevent the impression that those matters mentioned
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, does the Commissioner mean that the judge himself
in that town, where there are no practicing lawyers, will assist the accused in
waiving his right to confess?
MR. COLAYCO: No. What I mean is that the judge can take care of appointing
an attorney de officio. Surely, he knows who are the practicing lawyers in the
area and, of course, the national government really will have to pay more
attention to this particular problem. In the meantime, we believe that this is
a
necessary protection for the accused since the Commissioner mentioned the
bad practice of the local peace enforcement officers, including the PC people,
of
abusing the rights of the suspects during detention. Besides, we have to do
something about this even if it may be difficult to implement this in the
remote areas.
FR. BERNAS: I might add that implicit in this provision is a command to the
state that, in a locality where it is really impossible to have a lawyer, the
state is obliged to bring the person detained to some other place where
there is a lawyer.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I add something to that. When we included this
provision, we were thinking of two Supreme Court decisions; namely, on
People vs. Galit
and Moncupa vs. Morales. In those two cases, the Supreme Court ruled that
before an accused can waive his rights, he should be assisted by a lawyer.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I read some observations and recommendations by
Commissioner J.B. Laurel, Jr. which says that there should be some
rearrangements of the
articles. This could be taken care of by the Committee on Style such that the
provision where the accused is still under custodial investigation should be
placed ahead of that provision where the accused is already undergoing
criminal prosecution. I have just called the attention of the honorable
Commissioner
that that observation of Commissioner Laurel could be taken into account.
My last question is about the right to exercise the power of imminent
domain, Section 2, lines 11 and 12. Under the present law, upon deposit of
the
government of 10 percent of the assessed value, it can take over the
property of a private individual and the private owner has practically no right
to
place the accurate value of his property, if he places an amount considered
by the state in expropriating the property. On the other hand, if he places the
correct amount, the state makes its own assessment.
Section 2 states that private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation. What does the Committee have in mind as to the
meaning
of just compensation?
FR. BERNAS: In restating this, the Committee precisely intends to rely on
existing jurisprudence on this. Just compensation is a concept which is not
easily defined. Generally, jurisprudence defines it as the market value of the
property; that is, the price which the property will command if the seller
is not bound to sell and the buyer is not bound to buy. So, necessarily, it is a
very flexible concept. It is a question of fact which alternately must be
decided by a court. My own opinion on this is that, even if the law makes a
preliminary assessment of what a just compensation is for instance, that
law
which uses as a norm the amount in the tax declaration or the assessment,
which ever is lower that is only prima facie assessment. In the end, the
final
determination of whether or not the compensation is just will have to be
made by the court.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Not in accordance with the existing presidential decree
on the matter, which is oppressive and arbitrary?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely. What I am saying is that the existing presidential
decree is not binding on the courts as far as the fixing of the just
compensation
is concerned because it is a question of fact which is always subject to
review by the courts.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you, Madam President; and I also thank the
Commissioner.
MR. LAUREL: Commissioner Bernas is correct; just compensation is
determined by the court. It is the fair and full equivalent of the sustained
loss. As the
Reverend Father said, it would be the cost to one who would sell it, and also,
we have to take into account the cost it has to one who is under no
obligation to sell it. But that is a question of fact which has to be determined
on a case-to-case basis.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Regalado be recognized for his speech
en contra.
under Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code, the total service of sentence,
despite
the death penalty having been imposed, would actually entail only 18 years,
2 months and 12 days, which is much less than the duration for reclusion
temporal.
If we were to consider the special time allowances for loyalty and the special
workmanship allowances and commutation of sentence, the time to be
served
would be further substantially reduced.
Allow me now to state the reasons for my objection, for which I do not claim
responsibility but are culled from my own researches, specifically on the
articles written by the Rev. S. Otley Reyes of the Society of Jesus; Dr. Robert
Oswald, psychiatrist of Frankfurt University; Mr. Thomas McHugh, New York
State Commissioner of Correction; and the Most Rev. Thomas Riley, Auxiliary
Bishop of Boston.
First, on the aspect of deterrence: Current empirical data are inconclusive as
to the deterrent effect of capital punishment, although it has been shown
that the death penalty, if properly imposed and properly executed, can be an
effective deterrent under certain conditions. On the other hand, there is
likewise no empirical evidence as to the deterrent effect of life imprisonment
which is now being advanced as the acceptable alternative to the death
penalty.
Does the death penalty really serve as a deterrent? According to the Most
Rev. Thomas Riley, whom I have quoted, all hums beings, including those
suffering
from some mental aberrations fear the loss of their lives. The instinct of selfpreservation is so fundamental that the death penalty cannot but have a
powerful determining influence on the voluntary direction of human activity.
Second, on the theory of rehabilitation proposed by some in favor of only
imprisonment: There is statistical evidence to prove that punishment by
imprisonment alone does not achieve the purpose for which it ostensibly
exists. Such punishments are never effective for purposes of rehabilitation.
Few
individuals, if any, actually benefit from penal confinement. Correctional
institutions are merely relics of the thinking of the post-Newgate era in the
19th century, when it was postulated that confinement would automatically
produce reformation. Our ideas have changed over the years, but our prisons
have
not. The subhuman conditions in our penal institutions have repeatedly been
taken judicial notice of by our own Supreme Court.
Third, on the theory that only God, who created human life, has the right to
take it away: Bishop Riley says that the state derives its authority
ultimately from God and such authority is exercised in His name. It is not
inconsistent to hold that the state claims such right in circumstances in
which
this would clearly appear to be in accord with Gods own will.
Fourth, on the contention that it is beyond the authority of the state to take
the life of a human being: The right of each man to his life is anterior to
the existence of the state. Where, however, a man through his own fault has
endangered the right of the state to carry on its divinely appointed function,
he has forfeited his God-given right to life, and the state should likewise not
be deprived of an indispensable means of protecting society from further
and more serious harm.
Fifth, on the danger of abuse or error in imposing the death sentence: We
should not allow some abuses connected with the imposition of capital
punishment
to obscure our understanding of the considerations which justify this right in
principle. We should not argue that because the death penalty has
sometimes
been imposed for minor crimes, there can never be crimes of major
proportions for which it would not be a necessary and indispensable means
for the
protection of society.
There is such a thing today as organized crime; it is a big business. Those
who are engaged in it are highly intelligent, with highly competent counsel,
and they are completely unscrupulous. They do not hesitate to plan and
commit murder in cold blood when the need arises. We should not identify
the death
penalty with the gruesome methods which have been employed in particular
situations or by individual executioners in other countries, because that is
not
true in the Philippines. The only way the death penalty can be carried out in
the Philippines, by the fiat of the court and as provided by law, is by
electrocution.
We should not infer from the fact that hatred or vengeance is sometimes
associated with the infliction of capital punishment, that such motive
constitutes
the only reason for which the death penalty could be demanded or justified.
The supreme authority of the state carries the right to inflict the death
penalty when it can be shown to be a necessary means for protecting society
against crimes which endanger its very foundation.
or with the use of deadly weapon or rape by two or more persons resulting in
insanity (which fall under qualified rape), and finally arson resulting in
death.
Under special laws, we only have five capital offenses; namely, espionage,
certain subversive acts, certain acts regarding narcotics, certain acts inimical
to civil aviation, and carnapping coupled with the killing of the owner, the
driver or an occupant of the vehicle.
Of course, it is true that under the former regime, so many acts were
considered criminal and the death penalty was imposed even for minor
offenses, but
that was the fault of the times, not the fault of the law. That was spawned by
a period when so many acts were considered criminal with the hope that the
death penalty would deter the commission of offenses against the powers
that were. Under such situations, capital punishment could not be a
deterrent,
because it was not commensurate to the crime involved; it was politically
inspired, or at times not carried out for political considerations. That is why
some say that considering the proliferation of crimes during martial law,
which was sought to be avoided or minimized by the imposition of the death
penalty even for minor offenses, the capital punishment was not a sufficient
deterrent. No, those were abnormal times, because if people are pushed
against
the wall by unreasonable and Draconian laws, the death penalty would not
be an effective deterrent. But, if the death penalty were to be imposed and
properly executed for serious crimes with all the safeguards as they do it in
Thailand where the criminal sentenced to death is brought back to the very
place where the crime was committed, and is executed there, I am almost
sure that while the death penalty will not be a complete deterrent, it will
have
very substantial deterrent effects.
Thank you, Madam President
FR. BERNAS: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Treas be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Treas is recognized.
MR. TREAS: Yes, but in proving the manner, necessarily we must prove the
confession which was secured in violation of the rule.
FR. BERNAS: What is admissible in evidence is that the person did something
in violation of this provision. What is not admissible is the content of what
he said.
MR. TREAS: Can we clarify this during the period of amendments?
FR. BERNAS: We will entertain amendments at the proper time.
MR. TREAS: Just one more question on Section 2, page 1, lines 11 and 12.
The term just compensation was already discussed. Unfortunately, I was
out
during the discussion. The term has been interrupted by trial courts in
relation to the presidential decree mentioned by the Commissioner. May I
know the
interpretation of the Committee of just compensation, taking into account
that this is the same provision in both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions
which have been modified by that presidential decree?
FR. BERNAS: I go on the principle that constitutional principles are not
modified by decrees. Decrees must always be in conformity with
constitutional
principles. So, whatever is said in a presidential decree, or in a statute, for
that matter, must always be measured against the constitutional principle.
If a decree or a statute is in violation of the constitutional principles, then the
decree is invalid. As I stated in my previous explanation, the decree
defines just compensation as either the assessed value of the property or
the amount stated in the tax declaration, whichever is lower. In other words,
the presidential decree made a prima facie determination of what just
compensation is, but that is subject to review by the courts according to
existing
principles on the matter.
MR. TREAS: But the courts have uniformly taken that as the guide to
determine just compensation. So, for the record, insofar as our
proceedings are
concerned, since we are enacting or promulgating this new Constitution, may
we hear from the Committee its interpretation of just compensation?
FR. BERNAS: Anybody can contradict me if I am wrong. I think I will be
speaking for the Committee when I say that whatever determination there
may be in a
decree or a law of what just compensation is, is always subject to review by
the courts.
traditional freedoms is that they guarantee freedom from the state and
protection against the state, and they do not need any further implementing
action by the legislature. They are limits on the legislature and every other
official person or body. I mentioned this because in recent years, largely
through the influence of socialism and with the abundant help from the
Popes and
from communicators like us and so forth, there have arisen what are called
social and economic rights. In the scheme of our work, I consider these social
and economic rights as principally the concern of other committees.
particularly of the Committee on Social Justice. What distinguishes these new
rights
from the traditional liberties in the Bill of Rights is that, in the strict sense,
they are not rights which operate without implementing legislation, but
rather they are more properly claims or demands on the state. They
need implementing action by the state. Without implementing action, they
generally
cannot be enforced against anybody by judicial action. So, what we are
dealing with are those which are operative by themselves and do not need
implementing action. We do not wish to steal the thunder of our other
committees.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: But is the Commissioner willing to expand this concept?
We did not include this concept in the General Provisions because we
thought it
would be better to expand the concept in this particular provision.
FR. BERNAS: My own thinking is that those affirmative commands of the
state to do something are better placed elsewhere.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, there is still a long list of those who want to
interpellate, and so I shall limit myself to just one point and that is on
Section 4, page 2. This is a reproduction of the provision of the 1973
Constitution except for the deletion of the word or on line 4 between the
words
court and when. So, the 1973 Constitution provides:
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court or when public safety and order require it.
The word or has been deleted, so the proposed section reads, lawful order
of the court when public safety or order requires otherwise.
So, under the 1973 Constitution, an intelligence agency of the army can bug
a telephone without violating that provision?
FR. BERNAS: Under the 1973 provision, yes.
MR. RODRIGO: But under the proposed Constitution that cannot be done.
FR. BERNAS: It cannot be done.
MR. RODRIGO: It can be done only upon a previous Order of the court.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Regarding that mini coup d etat or, more accurately the coup
d hotel at the Manila Hotel, I read in the papers about a certain telephone
call from Hawaii and it seems somebody listened to the telephone
conversation. I do not know what the message was.
Under the 1973 Constitution, if that telephone conversation were recorded,
the tape could be used as evidence.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: If this proposed provision in the proposed Constitution were
approved and would be in effect, that conversation could not be used as
evidence.
FR. BERNAS: It cannot be used.
MR. RODRIGO: Will this not hamper the intelligence work of our Armed Forces
and of our government to ward off subversion and rebellious plots against
the
government?
FR. BERNAS: I think that the matter can be handled within the limits of this
provision. For instance, in the United States where there is an
Anti-Wiretapping Act, it is possible to obtain authorization to tap
conversations. but the requirements of probable cause and particularity of
description
are modified to suit the circumstances.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, the Commissioner is referring to the Anti-Wiretapping Act
of the Congress of the United States. But if the United States Constitution
had
a provision like the proposed provision, said Congress could not have
enacted an Anti-Wiretapping Act which authorizes wiretapping in certain
cases, except
with court authorization.
FR. BERNAS: No. What I am saying is, for instance, in the case of United
States v. United States District Court of Eastern Michigan, the question was:
Since wiretapping is prohibited, under what circumstances could
wiretapping be done? The answer given was: Upon order of the court.
Now, what are the
requirements of the court for the issuance of an order? The general
requirement for a warrant is that there must be probable cause and some
particularity
of description.
Let us take the residences of known gamblers as an example. It is possible to
obtain an order for the tapping of their telephone conversation. So, the
problem is: How do we solve the problem of particularity of description when
we do not know what will go through the wire? According to the last
American
case I read, the court specified the subject matters which may be tapped.
In our particular case, for instance, if there is a reasonable ground to believe
that General So-and-So is in touch with agents abroad, it would be
possible to obtain an order under this provision for authority to tap the
telephone of an individual and to record and use in court matters transpiring
on
a particular subject like coup plots and similarly related things.
MR. RODRIGO: But is a court order necessary all the time?
FR. BERNAS: Under this provision, yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Can our legislature not depart from this? In certain cases, say,
for example, the intelligence officers of the Armed Forces, can they wiretap
without a court order?
FR. BERNAS: Under this provision, no, and this modification of dropping the
two-letter word or was precisely put in there because of our experience of
the past 12 years where this was so easily abused.
MR. RODRIGO: In matters involving national security or public order,
sometimes things happen very fast, like the coup d hotel. There was no
more time to
go to a judge to ask for an order. In the case of the telephone call from
Hawaii. somebody happened to listen in, and if what was said was something
seditious, this fellow who listened in and heard what was said could not
testify in court. Is that it? He could not testify because he did not first obtain
a court order before he listened in?
FR. BERNAS: The matter cannot be used in court against the persons who
may be involved in the coup, but it may be used by the security forces so
they can
act upon it, and take the necessary preventive measures.
MR. RODRIGO: Just one more question. In Section 4, the Committee removed
the word or before the phrase when public safety or order requires. Is
that
regarding privacy of communication and correspondence?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: On the other hand, Section 5 states:
The liberty of abode and of changing the same and of travel, within the limits
prescribed by law, shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health.
A portion of this Section 5 uses a very similar phrasing as in Section 4. Why
did the Committee not remove the word or before when?
FR. BERNAS: I am glad the Commissioner asked that question. As I recall, he
was the one who recommended that we should not change it. So, perhaps he
is in
the best position to explain this.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. As a matter of fact, I was unhappy even about the
removal of the word or in Section 4. That is why I recommended not to
remove or in
Section 5. But by that time the word or in Section 4 was already removed.
FR. BERNAS: I might say that the subject matter is different. Section 4 deals
with communication, speech and so forth, whereas the other section deals
with
physical movement. So, there is a difference there.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner de Castro be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
just
whispering among ourselves.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you; I am sorry.
Some of the questions I wanted to ask have been asked by Commissioner
Suarez but I would still like to ask some of these questions for clarification
because I feel very strongly that that particular line on Section I of the Bill of
Rights The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum. should be
deleted. I feel that this sort of thing, like love, is frighteningly catholic and
is difficult to argue against. I just want to ask a few questions. Does
this mean that abortion under any and all circumstances is a crime or
violation of human rights?
FR. BERNAS: No. It does not mean that.
MR. BROCKA: Does this apply to a situation where the mother might die if the
pregnancy is allowed to continue? How about rape victims? Or any situation
for
that matter where the physical or psychological well-being of the woman
would be endangered by an unwanted pregnancy?
FR. BERNAS: It does not mean that. As I explained, the only object of this is
to take away the complete liberty of a woman to get rid of the fetus, even if
it in no way endangers her health or her life.
MR. BROCKA: So, is it possible then that the provision is worded in such a
way to make it very clear that what is banned is illegal abortion?
FR. BERNAS: That is why I made an appeal for a more felicitous expression.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: But certainly those matters the Gentleman is afraid of are
something not intended at all by this provision. The argument in Roe v. Wade
is that
the important thing is the privacy of the mothers womb. If she wants to get
rid of that fetus anytime within the first six months, it is allowed provided
it can be done safely, even if there is no medical reason for it. That is the
only thing contemplated in this.
MR. BROCKA: Then, I suppose, as the Gentleman said, he is looking for a
more felicitous word to describe that. In case the Gentleman cannot find the
right
phraseology, does this mean that the provision on the fertilized ovum will be
placed in the Constitution with the original wording because it has sense of
value?
FR. BERNAS: If we are unable to find a better substitute and if the provision is
approved, then the fertilized ovum will be implanted in the Constitution.
(Laughter)
MR. BROCKA: I do not think it should be implemented, for the simple reason
that medically, there is no clear consensus that the fertilized ovum is
considered human life. It may be a living thing and, for that matter, so is a
tadpole. But there is no constitution in the world that gives right to life
to tadpoles.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: One last question, Madam President. Has Father Bernas been an
expert on fertilized ovum? If so, where did he get his expertise? (Laughter)
FR. BERNAS: I refuse to answer the question on the ground that it may
incriminate me. (Laughter)
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we suspend the session until twothirty in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty this afternoon.
It was 12:14 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:51 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May we continue the period of sponsorship and debate. May I
call on Commissioner Rigos, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
thing
about this.
REV. RIGOS: Can we not achieve such objective through legislation?
FR. BERNAS: As a matter of fact, if the consensus comes out that this body
rejects that over-liberal American doctrine, I think we can do away with this
expression.
REV. RIGOS: I hope it will be possible for us to go along that way.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I would like to express on behalf of others that the one
important reason why I believe this cannot simply be left to legislation is this:
We would like to have a constitutional damper already on the assault to
human life at its early stages. And we realized that it can be possible to more
easily change . . . easier to change legislation on abortion. Hence, we would
like to be able to prevent those changes in the laws on abortion later.
REV. RIGOS: But our religious authorities sharply differ in their opinions as to
when human life can definitely be regarded to have commenced. If we
constitutionalize the beginning of human life at a stage we call fertilized
ovum, then we are putting a note of finality to the whole debate.
BISHOP BACANI: I would just like to remind Reverend Rigos that when we talk
about this, it is not a question of religious boundaries. In fact, let me just
read what is contained in an article given by one of my researchers. It says
that many scholarly Protestant and Jewish leaders are prominent in the
pro-light movement and they are referring to the anti-abortion movement.
I do not want to put this simply on the denominational plain, and it is
misleading to put it at that level.
REV. RIGOS: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: Because these are people who are not Catholics who are
Jewish, Protestants, even atheists but who are against abortion.
REV. RIGOS: I think the Gentleman is correct. On the whole, we can describe
the Protestant church as against abortion. But there is a big segment in the
Protestant church that wishes to make a clear distinction between what we
call abortion and miscarriage.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, there is nothing here against miscarriage. What I mean
is that miscarriage is not being ruled out. In fact, miscarriage is an accident.
REV. RIGOS: I thank the Commissioner.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I take this opportunity to ask the
Gentleman his own assessment of the cultural values today. As I said, as far
as I am
concerned, my only purpose in trying to defend this is to prevent the
Supreme Court from taking an over-liberal approach to abortion. Is it the
judgment of
the Gentleman that that is something that will not happen in the culture of
our country?
REV. RIGOS: It is my judgment that such an objective can be achieved
through legislation. And if we were to do it through legislation, there is little
leeway for the Congress to consider the various conflicting views on the
subject.
At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Florenz
D. Regalado.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I call on Commissioner Aquino?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to react to the position of
Commissioner Bacani, if I may be allowed the liberty of treading into the
domain of the celibates. I suppose I am entitled, I am unmarried anyway.
BISHOP BACANI: The Commissioner is also a celibate up to now.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: She has admitted it.
MS. AQUINO: Welcome to the club.
It should be sufficient to note briefly the way the discussions have been
unfolding that there is a wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive
and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view
that life does not begin until live birth. This is the belief of the stoics and a
certain predominant section of the Jewish faith, if I am not mistaken. It is my
fear, however, that the moment we constitutionalize the term fertilized
ovum (it may sound gross but that is how it is worded) it might disturb
settled jurisprudence in civil law. Law and jurisprudence permits parents of a
stillborn child to maintain a suit for wrongful death arising from prenatal
injuries. But this right is in vindication of the personal interest of the
parents, not the child. Civil law would likewise recognize the right of an
unborn child, the inchoate right to future inheritance. But again that is
contingent upon live birth, which is the perfection of that inchoate right. In
other words, law and jurisprudence are settled that the personality and the
right of a person do not ripen until one is born alive.
Madam President, I would now like to react to Commissioner Bacani to say
that life is present at conception is to give recognition to the potential
rather than the actual. And I believe that in the domain of the Constitution, it
is not up for us to preempt the question. The unfertilized egg has life,
and if fertilized, takes on human proportions. I am willing to concede to that,
but the law and our Constitution should deal with reality not obscurity,
the known rather than the unknown. We should deal with facts rather than
conjecture. It may be true that when the sperm shakes hand with the egg, it
may
eventually live, but it may also die. The Constitution should not deal with
speculation. The phenomenon called life takes time to develop; in other
words,
a fetus represents nothing more than a potentiality for life. Conception is a
process over time; it is not an event by itself. We do not have to resolve
the question of when life begins now, when even those who are trained in
their respective fields of medicine, philosophy or theology are unable to
arrive
at any consensus. I would doubt very much if this Commission mostly
considers the predominant influence of celibates like us, at this point in the
development of mans knowledge if we are in any position to prejudge this
question.
MR. OPLE: Why did the Commissioner not take a vow?
MS. AQUINO: That does not preclude me from taking a vow later.
On the point raised by Father Bernas, I think his fear is as I would say it
more apparent than real. The Commissioners doubt about the possibility of
the Supreme Court adopting the jurisprudence in Roe v. Wade is way off
mark. Filipino culture would not allow abortion that is unqualified and
unconditional. On this point, I would like to propose a felicitous formulation
although I do not think this rightfully belongs in the Constitution.
Generally, the laws in the United States would provide for stages in
pregnancy and conception, like for the stage prior to approximately the end
of the
first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left entirely
to the medical judgment of the pregnant womans attending physician. For
the stage subsequent to approximately the age of the first trimester, the
pregnancy,
despite the fact that the nature of the intra-uterine line has been the subject
of considerable dispute in the past.
Electrocardiographic recordings of human brain activity had been noted in
embryos at eight weeks. Our capacity to measure signs of life are still
becoming
more sophisticated and as time goes by, we will doubtless be able to isolate
lifes signs at earlier stages in fetal development.
I can go on but I stop there.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, in my own perception, there is no doubt
that within this Commission there is a great respect for life. I have no doubt
about that; that is the consensus. I also believe in the proposition that the
proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the way this provision, as
formulated, is sailing, and speaking as someone who is sometimes referred
to as a constitutional lawyer, it is my perception that a law which is subject
to
innumerable interpretations and, therefore, likely to be misunderstood,
misinterpreted, is a bad law. The way the provision is worded now confirms
my
belief that the phrase is not felicitous without making any reference to any
celibate felicity here. That is my conviction at the moment. Whether or not
we
delete this line, my only interest is that there has been an expression of
concern for life, but that this particular line 10 may not be the way to express
it.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I believe there is one more speaker who
would like to make remarks on this section. May we call on Commissioner
Rodrigo?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to ask a question basic to
the Bill of Rights. As rightly stated by the sponsor, the Bill of Rights lists
the rights of individuals vis-a-vis the state; these are rights which cannot be
violated by the state. What the Bill of Rights, therefore, tries to prevent
is the violation of these rights by the state, and not by other individuals. For
example, the provision no person shall be deprived of life means
nondeprivation of life by the state without due process of law. But if a person
kills another person, that is a violation of the penal law, but not of the
Bill of Rights. That is not a violation.
hospital. We have seen many of these individuals who lost their lives,
practically salvaged by institutions pledged to prolonging life because of the
neglect of the state in providing services. What provision of the law can
these people invoke to protect their right to life?
FR. BERNAS: The Commissioner is addressing her question to Commissioner
Rodrigo?
MS. QUESADA: No, I am asking the Committee because earlier, I did ask the
Commissioner where we would put this particular concern of ours, the health
care
delivery system, in this Constitution. I am a nurse, and many of the people I
have worked with are now struggling to improve the health care delivery
system because they have been witnesses to lives lost of persons being
salvaged in hospitals. There are many competent doctors and nurses who
are unable,
powerless and helpless to prolong the lives of patients in spite of their
expertise.
We are talking about due process of law and the Gentleman said this due
process of law would refer to people who have committed crimes against
property,
e.g. felony, or whatever. But when they go to a hospital or a clinic, they may
not have access to an injection an antibiotic, a blood transfusion or just a
simple tablet, resulting in the denial of the right to life. Nobody gets accused
of any crime because there is no law that covers this particular situation
in our society. Our respect for life is what makes us in the health sector work
for justice in health. We have such respect for life, otherwise we would
not be in this profession. And that is why I would like this particular body to
respond to the need for our people to know that they have the right to
protection under the law. We regret that many people outside health
institutions enjoy civil and political rights, but once they enter a hospital,
they
cannot invoke the right to life and the due process of law.
Would this particular provision which states:
No person shall be deprived of life, without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws . . .
be applicable to the health situation described earlier?
FR. BERNAS: My own thinking is that it would be better placed in the
Declaration of Principles. If the Commission will recall, for instance, in the
1973
Constitution, Section 7 of Article II says:
The State shall establish, maintain, and ensure adequate social services in
the field of education, health . . .
But as I said, this is not self-executory; it has to be carried out by legislation.
MS. QUESADA: Should this not be enshrined in the Bill of Rights as a
fundamental human right? Our personal experience shows that because of
inadequacy or
lack of social services, like health service, many people have been denied
this right to life.
FR. BERNAS: As I was saying, my own general classification of what is in the
Bill of Rights is that it is a list of those which the state may not do. It is
not a list of those which the state must do. So, in the example of the
Commissioner, what she is asking for is something which the state must do.
MS. QUESADA: Yes. This brings me to a second issue which is the expansion
of the Bill of Rights. The limitation of the present conceptualization of the
Bill of Rights has contributed to the lack of respect for human life. There is no
such strong guarantee in our Constitution that enables us to give due
respect not just to a fertilized ovum but to a fully developed being who loses
his life, for instance, in a hospital. We health workers feel so helpless
and powerless to do something about this because there is no such provision
in our law that makes it the states responsibility to insure that nobody is
denied this right to health and, in effect, right to life. Therefore, in addition to
what the Committee has covered here, we would like that the Committee
explore the possibility of expanding the Bill of Rights to cover all the
fundamental rights that have been enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human
Rights and in the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights ratified by our own government, in 1976. After we have gone through
the
general provisions and the provisions on social justice and human rights, we
would be able to classify the other rights that we feel should be recognized
by the state. I think this is particularly timely now that the President of the
Philippines, President Aquino, has mandated the teaching of human rights in
all schools. Is the Committee open to the suggestion that these rights be
classified under economic, social and cultural rights?
FR. BERNAS: As I said, the reason we limited ourselves to this is that there
are other committees such as the Committee on Human Resources, the
Committee
on Social Justice and the Committee on General Principles working
precisely on those topics. So, we did not want to steal the work from them.
We want to
give them a little work also.
MS. QUESADA: Would there be a possibility of harmonizing this with the other
committees concerned?
FR. BERNAS: That is certainly something I am not closed to.
MS. QUESADA: Finally, I would like to seek clarification on page 3, Section 14,
line 10, which states:
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Could this provision be invoked in the following situation: Right now, we are
witness to a situation where hundreds of nurses volunteer their
professional services in hospitals for as long as two years on the guise of
training for their application for overseas employment. But we know for a
fact
that these nurses are actually serving as volunteer workers without any pay
to serve as cheap labor pool to maintain the necessary nursing services. So,
we
are asking what provision of the law could be invoked for this particular
situation which some feel is like slavery. They are forced to work because
there
is no law that would be violated nor any legal provision that will prevent the
management to just employ them on voluntary basis. Could this provision be
invoked?
FR. BERNAS: From what the Commissioner has described, my initial reaction
would be no because as she said, they are volunteer workers; their working
is
not involuntary. This provision covers any kind of involuntary service whether
it be slavery, peonage, or what-have-you. But as I understand what she
described, it seems to be voluntary and, perhaps, it should be covered more
by labor legislation or social justice legislation.
MS. QUESADA: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we call on Commissioner Ople
please?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Will the sponsor yield to a few questions?
FR. BERNAS: Very willingly.
then, on the other hand, is killing the murderer also a grievous wrong? If so,
then we will have two wrongs already. According to the Old Testament,
justice meant an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. That is granting
that he
has a tooth. If he has no teeth, then what are we going to remove? He has to
go to the dentist in order to have a tooth removed. If killing the murderer is
wrong, according to the Fifth of the Ten Commandments which says Thou
shalt not kill which is also found in other sacred books then what
should
modern society do? We are in a dilemma.
If the act of the murderer is wrong and killing the murderer or imposing a
death penalty is also wrong, then what is proper? Can we then right a wrong
by
committing another wrong? One wrong plus one wrong equals two wrongs
very simple mathematics. What should society do?
Let us ponder on this, my friends. What is the proper course of action to
take? Let us relax and find the correct answer to this very important
question.
In countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia and other countries in the
Middle East, people are afraid to commit crimes, especially murder. Public
executions and lashings are very common and these serve as deterrents to
crime. The abolition of capital punishment or the death penalty is certainly a
very vital issue. The right to life belongs to both the victim of murder and the
murderer. If we abolish the death penalty in our land, we will be the only
country in Southeast Asia that has done so. Our crime rate, especially of
capital crimes, like murder and salvaging, is very high in spite of the death
penalty in our statutes. How much more if we abolish capital punishment or
death penalty, with the existence of many so-called murder syndicates in our
land? The penalty of reclusion perpetua or life punishment is not really a life
sentence, as was very well explained by Commissioner Regalado, because
there is always the pardon extended or given to those who are influential.
How about the so-called recidivist? A recidivist is a person who has the habit
of killing. He will keep on killing and killing until he dies. He might even
kill us and if that happens, there will be no more new Constitution to make,
and I shudder to think of such an event. The cream of our land, according to
us, will all die because we abolished the death penalty. Why should we
abolish the death penalty?
Murderers, knowing that there is no death penalty, will keep on killing. The
abolition of the death penalty will promote endless family feuds or strifes
for many will take the law into their hands, as has been cited by the previous
speakers, like Commissioners de Castro and Ople.
from the old to the new, from a captive to a critical consciousness the
creation of something different. I think we should not be afraid to be bold
and
daring, creative, imaginative, and I think this is where we are going.
MR. UKA: Thank you very much for the explanation. I hope it will guide me to
the course of action I may take, but offhand now, I can never forgive those
who killed Jesus for no apparent reason whatsoever. He is my Guide also.
Thank you very much.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we call on Commissioner Natividad.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Natividad is
recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the Committee yield to a few more
questions?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, the Committee will gladly yield.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am referring to Section 21 on page 4. This is called the
rights of the accused. This, to my knowledge, was lifted from the Miranda
ruling
by a five-four decision of the U.S. Supreme Court and adopted almost
verbatim in the 1973 Constitution. Am I right, Mr. Presiding Officer?
FR. BERNAS: It has its origins in the Miranda doctrine but it is not a verbatim
reproduction.
MR. NATIVIDAD: It is not verbatim but essentially, substantially, it is. In the
Miranda ruling, if I remember right, the duty of every official
investigating the commission of an offense is to inform the person under
investigation before the start of the investigation and this is the practice in
the United States and in the Philippines. Although these provisions are silent,
may I clarify for purposes of record and for the guidance of law
enforcement later on, that this is the concept that we are adopting in Section
21, are we not?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So that it should be understood that this duty to inform the
offender or the suspect of his constitutional rights should be done before the
investigation.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Still in Section 21, with regard to the requirement for
counsel, let me clarify a possible incident in the light of an actual law
enforcement work.
Suppose the police is chasing a criminal who was just actually seen or
witnessed as having committed a murder, or similarly was caught in
flagrante delicto
or having killed the person. When he was caught, the criminal said: I
admit everything. I will confess everything because I hate this man. I would
like
to sign my confession now. Could he sign a confession? And if he signed a
confession, would it be admissible in evidence?
FR. BERNAS: In other words, even before he was asked any question?
MR. NATIVIDAD: That is the situation. There are two elements there that are
lacking: First, he has not been informed of his rights; and second, the
presence of counsel.
FR. BERNAS: And not only that. Nobody asked him anything.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, he came forward.
The man says: I admit everything. You have seen me do it. I confess. These
are the realities of law enforcement. If he gives a voluntary confession in
that manner, will his confession be admissible in evidence under Section 21?
FR. BERNAS: My initial reaction would be no. It should be asked again in the
presence of counsel according to this provision. Would any other member of
the Committee answer that? But my own reading is that the question must
be repeated before counsel because a situation of hot pursuit is already a
situation of pressure.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Suppose it is not a situation of hot pursuit or being caught in
flagrante delicto, but the criminal has just committed a crime and the
police came on time. He is arrested.
FR. BERNAS: I would say that the way this is worded, it still would be covered
by this provision. I do not know if any other member of the Committee would
like to add something.
MR. NATIVIDAD: If, as a consequence of this voluntary confession, physical
evidence is recovered, such as a death gun, which is what usually happens in
law
enforcement work, will physical evidence recovered be admissible in
evidence?
FR. BERNAS: If, as a consequence of the spontaneous outburst of the
individual, physical evidence is found, my own thinking would be yes, it
would be
admissible.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Admissible?
FR. BERNAS: That is my own answer. I am looking around at my other
committee members to see if anybody would disagree with me.
MR. NATIVIDAD: We are now referring to the physical evidence, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
FR. BERNAS: I beg the Gentlemans pardon.
MR. NATIVIDAD: We are now referring to the physical evidence the gun.
The Gentleman said it is admissible.
FR. BERNAS: My own thinking would be yes. Do I hear any of my committee
members disagree?
MR. NATIVIDAD: I just want to make it of record because this section is
studied closely by law enforcers and our debates here will guide their
proceedings.
This is very ticklish, because this will either facilitate the investigation of
imprisonment, that by itself does not say that it is cruel. So, it does not
invalidate the penal law. So my own thinking is that what the Gentleman has
in
mind would be something more proper; even for ordinary legislation or, if at
all, for Section 21.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The Gentleman said that he is not going to sentence him in
a filthy prison. Of course not. But this is brought out in the petition for
habeas corpus or for injunction. This is revealed in a proper petition.
FR. BERNAS: I agree with the Commissioner, but as I said, the purpose of
Section 22 is to invalidate the law itself which imposes a penalty that is
cruel,
degrading or inhuman. That is the purpose of this law. The Commissioners
purpose is different.
MR. NATIVIDAD: My purpose is to abate the inhuman treatment, and thus
give spirit and meaning to the banning of cruel and inhuman punishment. In
the United
States, if the prison is declared unconstitutional, and what is enforced is an
unconstitutional punishment, the courts, because of that interpretation of
what is cruel and inhuman, may impose conditions to improve the prison;
free the prisoners from jail; transfer all prisoners; close the prison; or may
refuse to send prisoners to the jail.
FR. BERNAS: We would await the formulation of the Commissioners
amendment.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, in effect, it is abating the continuance of the imposition
of a cruel and inhuman punishment. I believe we have to start somewhere in
giving hope to a big segment of our population who are helplessly caught in
a trap. Even the detention prisoners, 85 percent of whom are jailed in the
metropolitan area, are not convicted prisoners, and yet although not
convicted in court, they are being made to suffer this cruel and inhuman
punishment. I
am saying this in their behalf, because as Chairman of the National Police
Commission for so many years, it was my duty to send my investigators to
chronicle the conditions in these jails day by day. I wrote letters to the
President asking for his help, as well as to the Batasan, but there was no
reply.
Finally, I am now here in this Commission, and I am writing this letter through
the Chairman of this Committee. I hope it will be answered.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, as I said, we have no quarrel whatsoever
with the objective. We will await the formulation of the amendment.
FR. BERNAS: First of all, if it is proved that the lawyer is not independent but
taking orders from authorities and does not take into consideration the
welfare of his assigned client, then whatever confession or admission is
obtained by him would not be admissible as evidence under lines 19, 20 and
21.
SR. TAN: But we have to prove that he is not independent.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
SR. TAN: But how do we do that?
FR. BERNAS: It is a question of evidence.
SR. TAN: Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, further still on Section 21, may we call on
Commissioner Suarez.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Distinguished sponsors, in Section 21, there is a sentence here which reads:
The legislature shall enact a law punishing any violation of this section.
Do the sponsors consider that relevant in the Article on the Bill of Rights, Mr.
Presiding Officer?
FR. BERNAS: Is the Gentleman asking my personal opinion?
MR. SUAREZ: No, what is the Committees stand on this, Mr. Presiding
Officer?
FR. BERNAS: The Committee has decided to keep it there.
MR. SUAREZ: May I know the personal stand of the Gentleman regarding the
insertion of this particular provision.
FR. BERNAS: My own personal stand is: we could dispense with this but we
would, perhaps, lose the emphasis that is placed on the importance of
protecting
the rights of the accused, and it is something which may be missed by the
legislature.
MR. SUAREZ: Assuming, hypothetically, that this particular provision will
remain as proposed in the draft resolution, are these the violations that are
to
be considered: First, the failure of the official investigating to inform the
person under investigation of his rights to remain silent and to have
counsel, and second, the failure to provide the one under custodial
investigation with a counsel who is competent and independent?
FR. BERNAS: That may be a little different because providing counsel I am
not too sure about this is more of a command to the state to make free
legal
counsel available. Besides, the investigator himself cannot take upon himself
the responsibility of looking for counsel for the individual, unless the
state has made counsel available.
MR. SUAREZ: Then what is the legislative compulsion that will require
compliance with this particular mandate, Mr. Presiding Officer?
FR. BERNAS: I guess this needs implementing legislation.
MR. SUAREZ: And if there is an implementing legislation, there must be
somebody who should be held as the violator of that provision and against
whom
sanction should be imposed?
FR. BERNAS: Yes. Let us suppose that there is, in fact, a defender officially
appointed in a municipality but the investigator neglects to contact that
defender.
MR. SUAREZ: And the third possible violation would be the exercise or the
use of force, violence, threat or intimidation against the supposed offender.
That is also one of the violations that should be punished by the legislator.
FR. BERNAS: The use of force against the subject of the investigation?
MR. SUAREZ: That is the third violation. That is contemplated under this
section, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: The fourth one would be the establishment of secret detention
places and incommunicado detentions.
FR. BERNAS: That would be another ground for creating a penal offense.
MR. SUAREZ: And the fifth one, I suppose, is placing these offenders in those
so-called secret detention places and incommunicado detentions, if these
had
been established.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. And, in fact, I would say that the legislature may even add
related matters. In other words, when we say that the legislature shall enact
a law punishing any violation of this section, we are not limiting the
legislature only to what are mentioned in these sections.
MR. SUAREZ: Another point, Mr. Presiding Officer, is the provision on the
compensation for and rehabilitation of victims of tortures or similar practices
and of their families which must be provided by law. Does the Gentleman
feel that this is also proper or relevant in drafting the Article on the Bill of
Rights or should it pertain to some other place?
FR. BERNAS: To the extent that it is intimately related to Section 21, there is
some justification for putting it there:
MR. SUAREZ: So the victims of tortures can now demand, as a matter of
right, compensation for and their corresponding rehabilitation, if necessary?
FR. BERNAS: As provided by law. This is not an automatic grant to victims. In
other words, this also needs implementing legislation.
MR. SUAREZ: But, basically, is the right of these victims to demand
compensation or rehabilitation constitutionally provided?
FR. BERNAS: This is more of a command to the legislature. This is the way I
read this.
MR. SUAREZ: So if the legislature will sleep on this provision, then no
compensation or rehabilitation could be demanded by the citizen whose
rights had
been violated. Is that the meaning of this particular provision, Mr. Presiding
Officer?
FR. BERNAS: As I see it, if the legislature does not pass a law implementing
this, the provision by itself will not enable the victims to obtain
compensation. This is again a reminder to the legislature to do something
about this.
MR. SUAREZ: I remember that one of our distinguished colleagues,
Commissioner Azcuna, precisely submitted for the consideration of the
Committee on the
Judiciary the consideration of the so-called writ of amparo, meaning, that one
has the right to demand the enforcement of a constitutional right. This is
now a constitutional right. So, would the Gentleman think that without the
legislative enactment, this is not an enforceable right?
FR. BERNAS: We were talking here, Mr. Presiding Officer, of compensation
and a system of rehabilitation. We envision here compensation by the state
and
rehabilitation under state auspices.
MR. SUAREZ: And, therefore, this is a demandable or enforceable
constitutional right? That is what I am trying to clear up, Mr. Presiding Officer.
FR. BERNAS: It is demandable in the sense that, if there is a law providing for
this compensation and providing for a system of rehabilitation, then the
victim can demand compensation and rehabilitation. But, as I say, unless this
is implemented by the legislature, by itself it does not accomplish much.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. MONSOD: May we call Commissioner Maambong?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer and members of the Committee, I was
really half-expecting that in order that we could understand the Bill of Rights
properly, perhaps, Commissioner Bernas could furnish us his book on The
Historical and Juridical Study of the Philippine Bill of Rights, which I
understand
was furnished to all the Members of the Constitutional Convention of 1971.
But I also understand that there are financial constraints, and the copies of
the book are actually out-of-stock. It is a rare collection actually. I am
privileged to have one copy, though.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I am not going to ask questions on the substantive
aspect of the Bill of Rights. By way of a general statement, I would rather say
that the Committee did a good job of it, one way or the other. What I am
really concerned about is that, in the previous interpellations, Commissioners
Quesada and Rosario Braid, particularly, found difficulty in classifying the
rights which they intend to be put into the Constitution. As a student of
constitutional law, I myself find that kind of difficulty. So, perhaps, with the
indulgence of the members of the Committee, it could really make my day,
if I could put forth my own type of classification of rights which the
Committee can feel free to reject or not, for the proper understanding of the
rights
that we are talking about.
I find three classifications of rights. One is a right which protects the citizens
against the government. Would Commissioner Bernas agree that one
classification of rights would be that which provides protection of the citizen
against the government itself?
FR. BERNAS: One classification of the rights in a Bill of Rights?
MR. MAAMBONG: Rights in their totality under the Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: I would say that the rights in a Constitution are protection
against the government.
MR. MAAMBONG: So, that is settled then. On that score, and inspired by one
of our colleagues in the Batasang Pambansa, former Assemblyman Zosimo
Paredes,
Jr., we filed under this category a resolution on the right to revolt. But we
have it from good authority that that is an inherent right of the government
and it is not actually necessary. Could the Commissioner comment on that?
FR. BERNAS: I would say that the right to revolt is something that is inherent
in the people.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. Probably, the right to bear arms would fall under that
category. Would the Commissioner say that?
FR. BERNAS: I would not put it under that category.
MR. MAAMBONG: The second category I was thinking of is rights which
protect the citizens against other private citizens. Would the Commissioner
consider
that as a valid classification?
FR. BERNAS: I would not put that under the Constitution. That would be more
of a matter for the Civil Code and the Penal Code.
MR. MAAMBONG: I was listening to Commissioner Rodrigo, and if I got the
answer of the Committee correctly, Commissioner Rodrigo was envisioning a
situation
where a private individual injures another individual. And if I got the answer
of the Committee correctly, the answer was, that is not covered by the Bill
of Rights. Did I get that correctly, Mr. Presiding Officer?
FR. BERNAS: Correct. That is covered more by civil law and criminal law.
MR. MAAMBONG: I see. The third classification which I was trying to propose
is the area where the rights envisioned by Commissioners Quesada and
Rosario
Braid would probably fall. I understand that there are such constitutional
rights which protect citizens against almost every kind of enemy, whether it
be
human or inhuman, like common disasters, invasion, unemployment,
starvation, pestilence, fire, flood, ignorance, poverty and diseases. Would the
Commissioner agree to that as a valid classification, considering that there is
indeed a proliferation of rights which fall under a very gray area of
classification?
FR. BERNAS: Yes. As I said in my opening statements, there have arisen in
recent years, particularly under the influence of socialist teachings and also
of
the teachings of the Pope, certain economic and social rights which strictly
are not on the same level as the traditional political and civil liberties we
have in the Bill of Rights because they are not self-executory. They are more
in the nature of claims or demands which the citizen may make of the state,
or claims or demands made by the people in general. The provision on social
justice, for instance, says that the state shall insure good working conditions
for laborers. Strictly speaking, that is not one of the traditional rights under
the Bill of Rights. It is more of a command to the state Look, you
better take care of that.
MR. MAAMBONG: So, while that is a valid classification, I take it to mean, Mr.
Presiding Officer, that in contradistinction with the other rights which we
mentioned, this type of right is a gray area because it is not strictly
enforceable in court. It is more of an obligation on the part of the
government
which the government may or may not do. Would that be a correct
statement, Mr. Presiding Officer?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, and that is why if we have to be very puristic about the Bill
of Rights, we would excise from it those which need further action by the
legislature.
MR. MAAMBONG: I consider this classification very important because I
notice from the index of the resolutions that we have that this is the area
where
most resolutions are directed to for instance, the right to information and
we also have rights mentioned by Commissioner Quesada, and I think this is
important for our purpose. Would the Commissioner also agree with the
statement that even though we put in clear terms the Bill of Rights, there is
no such
thing as absolute perfection in cases of the Bill of Rights in any Constitution?
FR. BERNAS: I could not agree less with the Gentleman.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just one more point on this, Mr. Presiding Officer. I am very
fond of the Commissioner. I have here his lecture on political rights found in
the New Constitution, by Joaquin G. Bernas S.J. I think this is his, which he
made in UP sometime ago. And I think we should put this on record for the
purpose of putting in a premise to my next question.
The Commissioner said in his lecture:
A Constitution as we understand it is a written instrument by which the
powers of government are established, limited and defined and by which
these same
powers are distributed among the various departments for their safe and
useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic. Constitutional law, on the
other hand, is broader than just the written instrument. It is a body of rules
resulting from the interpretation of the Constitution, interpretation
arising from actual conflicts that are brought before the courts. Included in
constitutional law also are the contemporary constructions which the
executive department gives to the written instrument.
Mr. Presiding Officer, is it possible that rights are not clearly set out in any
page of the Constitution but are interpreted by the Supreme Court or
interpreted by the executive department? As the Commissioner mentioned in
his lecture, those rights could be availed of by the citizen even though it is
not found in the Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer. The main thing in the
Constitution is the text, the letter. Constitutional law, however, is the whole
body of law built around that letter.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, the Supreme Court or the executive
department in the performance of their respective functions can actually
grant rights not
found in the Constitution to people.
FR. BERNAS: I would say that the executive department and the judicial
department can make their readings of the meaning of the Constitution and
determine
therefore, the scope of the letter. But what the Gentleman wants to know is
whether they create rights, or they legislate therefor. My answer would be, in
my opinion, no. But whatever they say must be something which they can
deduce from the Constitution.
MR. MAAMBONG: I will just ask one more question, Mr. Presiding Officer. On
Section 22, the original phrase used in the 1935 Constitution was cruel and
unusual punishment.
FR. BERNAS: Not until the legislature passes a law making them demandable
rights.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you very much.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we call on Commissioner Foz.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, in the explanation of Section 9 of the draft
about freedom of speech and of the press, there is the statement that the
provision preserves the consecrated language of the old version, and this is
only very true, because even our 1973 Constitution speaks in the following
manner: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press, etc., and the same language is found in our 1935 Constitution. Now,
this
provision is traceable to the First Amendment of the US Constitution which
has words to the same effect.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. FOZ: And, in turn, this provision of the American Constitution was
influenced by what happened in England or the experience of the 13
colonies, and
which, in turn, was influenced by what happened in England sometime
before, especially during the time of John Milton, the famous English poet
who rebelled
against a law at the time, which would license printing and publishing. As
presently worded in our Constitution and even in the American Constitution,
the
impression is that it is absolute freedom of speech and of the press that is
being granted or stressed, but we know very well that this is not so. As a
matter of fact, in our Revised Penal Code, we know there are provisions,
particularly on libel and inciting to rebellion, which are, in fact, legal
provisions which abridge freedom of expression and of the press. The
question is: Has the Committee ever tried defining freedom of expression,
freedom of
speech and of the press?
FR. BERNAS: The Committee did not think it necessary or advisable to try to
define these freedoms; rather, it would prefer to keep the original language
which has been enriched by a large body of jurisprudence. It is a dynamic
right which is very difficult to put into simple formulas, and we prefer to
leave
the formula this way.
MR. FOZ: But the sponsor says there has been a lot of judicial decisions
which define the extent or the boundaries of freedom of speech and of the
press,
and our courts are, in turn, influenced particularly by American decisions or
rulings on these twin freedoms.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: Has the Committee ever given any thought to rewriting this
provision on freedom of speech and of the press?
FR. BERNAS: The Committee did not, but if the Commissioner is prepared to
do it, we would entertain it. We would, however, prefer to keep the original
provision.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is in reference to Section 6, lines
15 to 17. I had earlier addressed this clarificatory question of
Commissioner Bernas who suggested that I raise it on the floor in order to
generate discussion. I would like to inquire from the Committee whether or
not
the provision includes access to data of government research projects and
whether or not the phrase official records, and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions includes findings of
government research. I have my doubts whether it covers results of
government
research, since such studies do not always pertain to official acts,
transactions or decisions. Their subjects usually include popular attitudes,
livelihood problems and manpower development, all of which do not
comprise official acts or transactions.
FR. BERNAS: The access to official records is subject to reasonable
limitations. It was earlier asked whether the limitations envisioned are purely
procedural or also substantive; in other words, can the government prohibit
access to certain types of information?
I hesitate to state a general rule on this because, as I said, when we were
talking about this outside the session, for instance, I would have no
difficulty if, say, the DAP were to conduct an opinion poll about the present
government, and we were to give to the public access to the results of that
opinion poll.
MR. VILLACORTA: I think so.
FR. BERNAS: My judgment would be yes.
But suppose the government entered into a contract, let us say, with a drug
company to do funded research on a particular kind of drug, will the public
have a right of access to information about the findings of that research? I
think there may be proprietary rights involved here.
MR. VILLACORTA: My point here, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that the public
should be more than just informed about official transactions. I think they
have
the right to know data that concern them especially if they themselves are
the subject of surveys. The experience during the past dispensation was that
state-sponsored research was manipulated to serve the interests of the
regime, to legitimize its policies and perpetuate the power of its leaders. And
since its think tanks conduct research to have an empirical basis for policy
formulation, the public has the right to have access to these research
findings.
FR. BERNAS: On those things, as I said, I have no difficulty making a rule. I
only have on those areas where there may be proprietary rights involved.
MR. VILLACORTA: Should not the popular sovereignty and popular interest
prevail over proprietary rights of research?
FR. BERNAS: They should.
MR. VILLACORTA: The data will not be reproduced anyway, Mr. Presiding
Officer. There will be no violation of copyright in this case, but we are simply
guaranteeing that the people will know what the findings are all about.
FR. BERNAS: Perhaps, we are not clear on what we mean by proprietary
rights. Perhaps, it would be better if the Commissioner gave examples of
what he has
in mind so it will be easier to answer.
MR. VILLACORTA: I have in mind, for example, the research findings on
nutrition which the previous government suppressed because they proved
that we are
among the most malnourished countries in the world. Researchers from
universities were refused access to data, for obvious political reasons. Since
the
intent of this Section 6 is to adequately inform the public so that nothing vital
in state affairs is kept from them, then we should add to this provision
access to the results of government research.
FR. BERNAS: In that particular example, I would have no hesitation in saying
that that is something which should be made accessible.
MR. VILLACORTA: Would the Committee entertain an amendment I will
propose at the proper time on this subject?
FR. BERNAS: I would say that we would have to wait for the wording, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Just a short clarificatory question from Commissioner Foz.
MR. FOZ: Under the same provision, Mr. Presiding Officer, would a regulation,
let us say, by the Securities and Exchange Commission, classifying as
confidential the financial reports of certain corporations, such as
multinational drug corporations, be covered by the provision, so that the SEC
would
have no legal basis, constitutional basis, for so prohibiting or not making this
financial report available to those who may be interested in taking a look
at it?
FR. BERNAS: Perhaps, I should ask somebody who has more familiarity with
concrete circumstances on this matter.
MR. FOZ: Financial reports are required of corporations by the SEC, but these
are considered classified matters not available for inspection by interested
parties.
FR. BERNAS: I would ask for the reason why they are made classified
matters.
MR. FOZ: This is an actual case of a researcher at the UP Law Center who
was making a research on data on the financial operations of multinational
drug
companies. But when he went to the SEC to take a look at the financial
records data which are filed as a matter of course by these corporations as
required by the Corporation Code he was barred from taking a look at
them.
FR. BERNAS: My initial reaction, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that that would be an
unreasonable limitation which is against the interest of the public.
commit rebellion. Considering the fact that rebellion does not arise until
there
is an actual armed public uprising against the government, does not the
sponsor believe we should not delete the words or imminent danger
thereof that
were already in our Constitution?
Likewise, I do not know what the report of the Committee on the Executive is
on the provision on the commander-in-chief, whether they also
recommended the
removal or deletion of the words or imminent danger thereof.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, they also do. As a matter of fact, they did it ahead of us
and we merely harmonized it. Perhaps, the better place to discuss this is
when
we are in the Article on the Executive, particularly on the provision on the
commander-in-chief.
MR. PADILLA: No, this is a very important provision in the Bill of Rights. I feel
that if we delete the words or imminent danger thereof, the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus may not be suspended until there is an actual
rebellion, actual armed public uprising against the government for any of the
purposes mentioned in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code.
If we will have to wait for the actual invasion or actual armed public uprising,
does not the sponsor believe that this might render the powers of the
President in the commander-in-chief provision, as well as in the Bill of Rights,
inutile, making it very difficult, if not too late, for the suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus, especially when we consider that contrary to some
decisions of the Supreme Court during martial law, we agree that even if it is
suspended, it does not necessarily carry with it the denial of the right to bail?
Will not the Committee consider the reinstatement of the phrase or
imminent danger thereof?
FR. BERNAS: The reason for the deletion of the phrase or imminent danger
thereof is that it is such a vague concept which is very difficult to evaluate
and, therefore, is open to abuse by the Executive. So following the lead of
the Committee on the Executive, our Committee preferred to limit the
grounds
for the suspension of the privilege to actual invasion and actual rebellion.
MR. PADILLA: The phrase or imminent danger thereof contemplates not
only the danger of invasion or rebellion but that the danger is imminent. Of
course,
we cannot specify every instance that would constitute imminent danger of
invasion or imminent danger of rebellion. But a suspension of the writ of
habeas
corpus, which, in a way, is precautionary, and although it might entail certain
rights of individuals, is for the purpose of defending and protecting the
security of the state or the entire country and our sovereign people.
The phrase or imminent danger thereof may not be precise nor specific,
but is somewhat vague. But is there a better way of expressing it? In my
opinion,
if there is real danger and it is imminent, it should cover the situation.
FR. BERNAS: In the judgment of the Committee, putting that in as a ground
would not be necessary for the protection of the security of the nation. If the
amendment is proposed, we certainly will present it to the floor for a vote.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
This provision based on the Miranda decision was suggested to be
transposed to make it follow the provision on warrant of arrest or
unreasonable search and
seizure.
FR. BERNAS: I would agree with that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
But as I mentioned earlier, I would not stress the element of duty of the
investigating officer. I prefer to stress the right of the arrested person. In
other words, the original text of the 1973 Constitution, in my opinion, is
better worded than the proposed provision.
FR. BERNAS: Again, we will entertain amendments on that.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
On Section 23, on double jeopardy, there was a Davide resolution which
allowed an appeal in a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case that states:
An acquittal by a trial court is, however, appealable provided that in such
event the accused shall not be detained or required to put up bail.
This has been deleted by the Committee because it adheres to the existing
provision on double jeopardy.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: I recall that when this same idea, but in different phraseology,
was presented and approved by the Committee on the Judiciary, the great
objection was that it would violate the immunity against double jeopardy. But
I recall, the sponsor admitted, after I had explained the day before, that it
did not violate double jeopardy but that it was unnecessary and harmful.
What is the real position, Mr. Presiding Officer? Is it in violation of double
jeopardy or is it just because it need not be stated in the Bill of Rights nor in
the Article on the Judiciary?
FR. BERNAS: I explained my position on that, Mr. Presiding Officer, when we
considered the matter in the Article on the Judiciary. The position I took was
that it was not a departure from existing jurisprudence. In fact, it was more
strict than existing jurisprudence in that it required not just abuse of
discretion but it also required that the judgment be clearly against the
evidence.
MR. PADILLA: That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer. because we want to make
the exercise of that right by the state or the offended party restrictive not
only through a petition for a review on certiorari in the discretion of the
Supreme Court which may dismiss it outright, but also on certain grounds
that
are really covered by in excess or lack of jurisdiction.
But my common impression, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that most lawyers are of
the opinion that when a judgment of acquittal is rendered by a trial court,
that is final, executory and not appealable. And that common impression is
general.
Does not the sponsor think, Mr. Presiding Officer, an appeal from an arbitrary
judgment of acquittal rendered by a few corrupt judges of the offended party
or the state will improve the administration of justice?
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have expressed my position on this when
we voted on Third Reading on the Article on the Judiciary. But if the
Commissioner wants to raise the matter for reconsideration, he can present
a motion on the floor.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I remember a memorandum of honorable Commissioner Laurel, Chairman of
the Committee, saying that if there was an appeal by the accused, why not
include the
fiscal.
I now go to this very far-reaching classification of the death penalty as cruel,
degrading or inhuman.
Regarding the right to bail, both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions provide
for an exception of those charged with capital offense where the evidence of
guilt is strong, but this was deleted in this Section 18.
FR. BERNAS: It was deleted, Mr. Presiding Officer, because of the abolition of
capital punishment. Perhaps, for purposes of order, before we take up
Section 18, we should take up the matter of capital punishment first.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, because capital punishment is
prescribed by law only for very few capital offenses, and the court usually
only
imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when the commission of
a capital offense is attended with qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
In
both Constitutions, that exception appears, that one is entitled to bail before
conviction, but in a capital offense where the evidence of guilt is strong,
the court may deny the right to bail. And as the sponsor said, this was
deleted because under Section 21 of the 1973 Constitutions Bill of Rights, it
says: Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment
inflicted.
The Committee suggested the change of the words or unusual to
degrading or inhuman punishment, or the death penalty inflicted. I wish to
make of record
that I agree with the observations of Commissioners Colayco, Regalado and a
few others who believe that capital punishment should be retained as it is
provided for not only in the Revised Penal Code but also in the Rules of Court,
including the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedures. It was proposed that
capital punishment be deleted because only God who has given us life has
the right to take it away. To the proponents, therefore, the state, even in a
delegated way, cannot or should not impose the death penalty.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, that is one of the reasons given by the
Committee, and I think the Committee has said everything it wants to say
about
it.
BISHOP BACANI: Perhaps, I could just add that also right now, in an
atmosphere of public opinion in the Philippines, we should take account of
the fact
that the Catholic bishops did oppose capital punishment. In 1979 when this
was discussed by the Batasang Pambansa, Bishop Legaspi stated the
Catholic
bishops stand, and I quote the final part of it:
the death penalty or its abolition would be for the common good. I do not
believe this Commission can a priori, and as was remarked within a few days
or
even a month, determine a positive provision in the Constitution that would
prohibit even the legislature to prescribe the death penalty for the most
heinous crimes, the most grievous offenses attended by many qualifying and
aggravating circumstances.
BISHOP BACANI: I would just like to say that precisely because this has been
discussed for so long by other people and there has been so much work done
before, we can stand on their shoulders. We have benefitted from so much
discussion of it and our long experience with it in the past.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, but this is not an absolute truism. It is not a matter of faith
or morals, but is more of law and, as I mentioned before, of retributive
justice. I do not believe it is wise to impose an absolute prohibition in the
Constitution regardless of the legislative power and to depend upon the
prevailing circumstances.
BISHOP BACANI: I think the sense of the Committee is that given the
development of the moral sense of the people, it is now right and the time
for such a
prohibition in our Constitution.
MR. PADILLA: We have to distinguish among the penalty prescribed by law,
the penalty imposed by a court after due trial, the necessary provisions for
safeguards, the automatic review by the Supreme Court and also the
question of imposition and execution of the penalty.
Will the sponsor believe that even the prescription for the provision of this
capital punishment should be prohibited because under the criminal law
there
should be no penalty unless prescribed by law, nulla pena sine lege, for the
impression or the recommendation is against the execution of the death
penalty?
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee recommends the
prohibition of the imposition of the death penalty and it is our position that
this be
given to the floor for decision.
MR. PADILLA: I notice the remarks of Commissioner Garcia regarding
extrajudicial executions in Latin America. And I suppose also during the
martial law in
the Philippines there were so many extrajudicial executions which had been
termed salvaging, which means that people were just unheard from.
Sometimes
their bodies are seen floating on the Pasig River. Of course, extrajudicial
execution is abhorrent to orderly society. But does the sponsor not think that
precisely to avoid extrajudicial executions, this punishment which is reserved
only for very few capital offenses and when attended by qualifying
circumstances, should be retained to avoid retaliation or revenge, meaning,
the victims or the relatives take the law into their own hands as was
mentioned
in one example by Commissioner de Castro? These are arbitrary and outside
the process of the law. Does the sponsor not think that the fact that there
were
extrajudicial executions, especially in Latin America and also here during the
martial law, that that is not an argument against but in favor of capital
punishment?
MR. GARCIA: No, precisely, it is these governments which tolerate or even
perpetrate extrajudicial executions because of a sense of overpowering
inability
or capability to snuff out the life of any man, and because of this atmosphere
or climate of power and terror which they perpetrate, they are able to do
this with impunity in a much more massive scale by means of extrajudicial
execution without having to go through due process. What I am trying to
precisely
point out is the climate and the thinking of the overpowering capability of the
state to impose this kind of authority over its citizens without respect of
due process, without respect for dissent. If we notice, in the countries where
this happened, like in Guatemala, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina,
before the changes took place in these countries, they were in an
atmosphere of authoritarian rule where the death penalty was present.
MR. PADILLA: Precisely, we condemn these extrajudicial executions. We
cannot use even a stronger language than condemn because these
executions are done
arbitrarily by abuse of power without hearing, without trial, without due
process. But the provision on capital punishment under our Revised Penal
Code and
the Rules of Court provides for even a very long procedure of trial and
review, and in some cases may merit the exercise of executive clemency by
commutation or by conditional pardon. If we delete this, I am afraid we might
be increasing not only extrajudicial executions by arbitrary and dictatorial
regimes but also private executions by those aggrieved who might take the
law into their own hands because they feel they did not receive retributive
justice. In other words, the Commissioners comment on extrajudicial
executions, in my opinion, is not an argument for abolition but for retention.
during the martial law period, military investigators would attempt to flout
with impunity the provisions of Section 21 on the ground that Section 20 of
the 1973 Constitution did not provide that the same rights would be
applicable to tactical interrogation, but only to custodial interrogation.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think Commissioner Colayco would like
to answer that point for the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. TADEO: Mr. Presiding Officer, puwede po bang makasusog lang kay
Commissioner Aquino? Kasi po iyong tinutukoy ng Commissioner ay isa rin sa
aking
itatanong dahil sa ang karamihang biktima ng tactical investigation ay mga
magbubukid. Sinasabi po ng mga military investigators na ito ay routinary
procedure at isang pag-iimbita lamang kaya po ang mga manananggol ng
mga magsasaka ay hindi makapasok. Ibig lang po naming linawin kung
kasama ang
custodial and tactical interrogations dito sa Section 21.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Has Commissioner Aquino
completed her inquiry, and is she adopting the questions of Commissioner
Tadeo?
MS. AQUINO: I think we are raising the same question, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Colayco is
recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Section 21 is, we might say, an expansion of the provision in
the 1973 Constitution which concerns the so-called custodial examination,
which
was the result precisely of a complaint of Commissioner Garcia that it has
been the practice of military investigators to prohibit the assistance of
counsel to persons suspected of being subversives on the ground that
custodial interrogation is different from tactical interrogation. So the ViceChairman
assigned us, Commissioners Sarmiento, Garcia and myself, to further study
the problem, and we have come up with this.
We will notice that under the old rule, the mantle of protection where the
suspect or accused under investigation could only claim the right against
self-incrimination and the right to be informed of his right to have counsel
and to remain silent was apparently limited to that portion of the
investigation when he was already under the technical custody of the
investigator. That is why it was referred to as custodial investigation.
MS. AQUINO: The same custodial was not also used in the 1973
Constitution.
MR. COLAYCO: No, it was not, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: It mentioned only investigation.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes. I would like to invite the Commissioners attention to the
last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 21, which states: Secret
detention places and incommunicado detentions are prohibited, which
amply covers the problem the Commissioner has voiced.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Maybe, some amendments
might be in order to precisely apply to custodial interrogation, temporary
detention
and preliminary technical custody.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we call on Commissioner Rosario
Braid?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is on a different issue.
Following my interpellation this morning, I would like to underscore the
power of
communication to shape opinions, to create divisiveness or, on the other
hand, to build understanding between different groups. I refer to the regular
occurrence of reports in the media on criminals who are often described
according to ethnic origin, such as a Muslim thief, a Chinese estafador, an
Ilocano
killer and so forth. Often, these disparaging remarks tend to create
stereotypes in the minds of the public. These also tend to create divisiveness
among
different groups. I wonder if the Bill of Rights could protect the rights of
minorities and groups who seek redress for disparaging remarks from the
media.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee will entertain amendments to that effect.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we call on Commissioner Tadeo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Tungkol po ito sa Section 5, page 2, lines 8 to 12 na nagsasaad:
The liberty of abode and of changing the same and of travel, within the limits
prescribed by law, shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
FR. BERNAS: The sentiment of most of the members of the Committee was
that it would still be understood even without that phrase.
MR. SUAREZ: For purposes of record, does this envision a situation where the
judge can conduct the examination personally even in his own residence or
in a
place outside of the court premises, say, in a restaurant, bar or cocktail
lounge? I ask this because I handled a case involving Judge Pio Marcos in
connection with the Golden Buddha case, and I remember the search
warrant was issued at 2:00 a.m. in his residence.
FR. BERNAS: May I ask Commissioner Colayco to answer that question from
his vast experience as judge?
MR. COLAYCO: We have never come across an incident like that. But we
always make sure that the application is filed in our court. It has to be done
there
because the application has to be registered, duly stamped and recorded in
the book.
MR. SUAREZ: So it is clear to everybody that when we said it shall be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation that
process must have to be conducted in the court premises.
MR. COLAYCO: Not only in the court premises but also in the courtroom itself.
We do that at least in Manila.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. COLAYCO: For the information of the body, the words searching
questions, if I am not mistaken, are used in the Rules of Court.
FR. BERNAS: The phrase is not yet used in the Rules of Court.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
May I now go to Section 19. It is stated here that a trial in absentia, so to
speak, can be conducted after arraignment under the situation stated and
outlined in this section, which means that the accused has been duly notified
and that his failure to appear is unjustifiable. This can proceed up to a
decision of conviction. Is that the meaning of this provision, Mr. Presiding
Officer?
FR. BERNAS: No. Is there not something in the Rules of Court that at least
provides that the accused must be present?
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, before the promulgation of the decision, a trial
in absentia can be conducted.
FR. BERNAS: This has reference to the period of trial. Is the promulgation part
of the trial or not? I do not think it is part of the trial.
May I ask Commissioner Colayco regarding this.
MR. COLAYCO: I may be a bit rusty on this, but my recollection is that in case
of conviction, the presence of the accused is required.
FR. BERNAS: I think we used the word trial. In the old jurisprudence, under
the right to speedy trial, I remember that the interpretation of the court
of the word trial was that it covered the period of the trial itself, excluding
the decision. So my understanding here is that the accused should be
present at the promulgation of the sentence.
MR. SUAREZ: So that development could exist only, if the accused had been
properly arraigned.
FR. BERNAS: That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: And, therefore, his failure to appear despite the service of
notices to him is unjustifiable.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: And up to the point where the judge can render the decision on
the basis of the trial conducted, he cannot promulgate the decision?
FR. BERNAS: I think this covers the period until the prosecution rests the
case.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we close the period of
sponsorship and debate.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Just a moment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
May I just make a remark?
MR. MONSOD: I ask that Commissioner Natividad be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Natividad is
recognized.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I just want to make an announcement.
Proposed Resolution No 479, entitled: RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES THE RECOGNITION OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND AGRARIAN REFORM
AS PRIORITIES OF THE STATE, AND COOPERATIVES AS AN ORGANIZING
PRINCIPLE, has been referred by the Committee on Social Justice to the
Committee on Preamble,
National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, it seems that our Members are valiantly
carrying on despite exhaustion, but in the interest of everybodys health and
the health of the Constitution we are trying to frame, I move that we adjourn
until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in
the
morning.
It was 6:01 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call
R.C.C. NO. 33
Friday, July 18, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:36 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present*
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Aquino
Present
Nieva
Present*
Azcuna
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present
Ople
Present*
Bengzon
Present
Padilla
Present
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present*
Bernas
Present
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Present
Brocka
Present*
Reyes de los
Present
Calderon
Present
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Present
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Foz
Present*
Suarez
Present
Garcia
Present*
Sumulong
Present
Gascon
Present*
Tadeo
Present
Guingona
Present
Tan
Present
Jamir
Present
Tingson
Present
Laurel
Present*
Treas
Present
Lerum
Present*
Uka
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villacorta
Present
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications, the President
making the corresponding of references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Resolution of the Knight of Columbus Council 8134, Cotabato City, on the
renegotiation and/or implementation of the Tripoli Agreement suggesting
that
should any negotiation be held, it should be free from foreign intervention.
(Communication No. 228 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from Ms. Erna-Leah C. Orante of 9 Zone 5, Dayangdang, Naga City,
suggesting provisions to stop the improper use of prime agricultural lands for
residential, commercial and industrial purposes.
(Communication No. 229 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Letter from Mr. R.A.D. Baron of the United Christian Community Organization,
UNICO, Manila, proposing a provision in the bill of rights on the right to
bear arms.
(Communication No. 230 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and
Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines signed by Mr. Vicente D.
Millora, forwarding proposals of the Council for the Welfare of Children
underscoring the need for principles or policies protecting the rights of
children, youth and mothers.
(Communication No. 231 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 486
(Article on the Bill of Rights)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we continue the consideration of
Proposed Resolution No. 486.
We are still in the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The honorable Chairman and members of the Committee on Citizenship, Bill
of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights are invited to
come
forward.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that the Chairman of the Steering
Committee be recognized for some important information.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, in the past, the Committee on the
Executive submitted partial committee reports: namely, Committee Report
Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and
11. The consolidated report of the Committee on the Executive has already
been submitted; therefore, in order to avoid any confusion in the minds of
the
Commissioners and the cluttering of the calendar, I would like to move that
these partial committee reports be taken out of the calendar because they
are
already included in the consolidated report. One partial committee report is
also for the Committee on the General Provisions. Both Committees have
already
submitted their consolidated report.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the consolidated report of the
Committee on the Executive?
MR. RODRIGO: On page 2, Section 4, line 4, between the words court and
when, I propose to reinstate the word OR so that this sentence will read:
The
privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court OR when public safety or order requires
otherwise.
May I explain?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo may proceed.
MR. RODRIGO: In both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions, the word or
appears in that particular Section 4.
We must not hamper the activities of the intelligence service of our
government. This is especially true now that there are threats to the stability
of the
government; for example, there is the criticism on why the Armed Forces
seemed not to have known beforehand about the aborted coup d hotel that
happened a
few Sundays ago. So, if that word or is eliminated, then it will hamper, it
will tie the hands of the intelligence service of the Armed Forces, because
before it can open any correspondence or before it can tap a telephone call,
let us say from Hawaii to Manila, it will have to secure a prior order from
the court. While I myself would want all my communications and
correspondence absolutely untampered with, the need for preserving public
safety, security
of the state and stability of the government especially these days when there
are threats, schemes and plots against the government, should not be
hampered. We should not tie the hands of our intelligence service. So I would
be willing to subordinate my personal privacy to public safety.
THE PRESIDENT: May we know the position of the Committee?
FR. BERNAS: The Committee would like to leave the matter as it is. It is
correct to say that the word or is found both in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions, but one important difference between the two is the second
paragraph of Section 4 (same Article) of the 1973 Constitution which states:
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
That is an added precaution for the protection of citizens precisely when
governments tend to be abusive. So, if we add OR and leave to the
government the
general discretion to decide when public safety or order requires it, like when
to allow wiretapping and so forth, then this can be rather oppressive and
can be a source of great abuse against the citizenry. As to the matter of
national security, I think these matters can be handled by more advance
systems
of surveillance which can be done under the present state of
communications science. So, with this point, the position of the Committee is
to leave the
matter to the body for decision.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, I would like to say something before we
put the matter to a vote.
Under the 1935 Constitution the word or also appears, meaning, that this
intrusion into the privacy of communications, say by wiretapping or by
interception of mail matter, could be made with or without an order of the
court when public safety or order requires it. I do not think there would be
any
abuse, because while under the 1935 Constitution the word or appeared,
there were enough safeguards. In 1965, the Congress passed RA 4200 which
requires
a court order even in matters involving public order and safety. Wiretapping
was allowed, with sufficient safeguards, but only in certain cases including
treason, rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition or espionage. Under this law,
while the government could have proceeded without a court order, RA 4200,
nevertheless, required such a court order, which was not violative of the
Constitution, and with sufficient safeguards. The application for a court order
was just like an application for the issuance of a search warrant. The
corresponding documents were required to be presented and personally
examined by the
judge and all communications thus intercepted had to be deposited in court
within 24 hours with the proper certification. Failure to follow this would
make
the intercepted document, say, a tape-recorded evidence or mail matter,
inadmissible as evidence in court. Making this requirement for a court order,
in
all instances, does not consider that remote possibility of an urgent need for
intrusion into the privacy of communication,. thus hamstringing the
government. Yet, as I pointed out, despite the alternative word or in the
1935 Constitution the old Congress still provided the corresponding
protection
just the same. So, I am for maintaining the provision in the 1935 Constitution
which gives the alternative or to be resorted to only in extreme cases.
MR. SUAREZ: Therefore, it is well within the hands of the government to take
advantage of the constitutional provision securing or guaranteeing privacy of
communications and correspondence.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, if it is within the power of the government, it can be
abused . . .
MR. SUAREZ: And under the guise of public safety and order, the government
can very well open, for instance, the Commissioners correspondence
addressed to
his clients in the rural areas.
MR. RODRIGO: But there is that piece of legislation mentioned by
Commissioner Regalado precisely to safeguard that right and to prevent the
abuses of the
government. But if we remove that word or, even the legislature will be
prevented from enacting laws safeguarding the rare cases, but with
safeguards,
when the government can look into private communications for public safety
and national security.
MR. SUAREZ: Does not the Commissioner believe that the privacy of
communications must be preserved as a sacred principle in the Constitution
and that if
that is violated, it may inflict great harm upon private citizens, like the
Commissioner and myself?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, but over and above our private interest is the security of
the state.
MR. SUAREZ: Can the state save me?
MR. RODRIGO: We have to sacrifice certain personal conveniences for our
national security.
MR. SUAREZ: Can the state not go to court and secure a lawful order?
MR. RODRIGO: It will take time. During the period of interpellations, I gave as
an example that coup d hotel, which happened so fast. Suppose the army
command suspected that some officers of the army were plotting and
communicating with each other by the telephone, and the Army Intelligence
Service wanted
to listen in order to know what the plot was about. Suppose there was also a
telephone call from Honolulu to Manila, which they consider serious. If the
authorities chose to go to court to get a lawful order, then it would have
taken time and would have been ineffective.
The foreigner who is denied in his own country the effective exercise of
democratic freedom provided for by the Italian Constitution has a right to
asylum
in the territory of the Republic in accordance with the provisions of law.
Extradition of foreigners for political offenses shall not be granted.
In the Constitution of Mexico, Article XV provides:
No treaty shall be authorized for the extradition of political offenders or of
offenders of the common order who have been slaves in the country where
the
offense was committed, nor shall any agreement or treaty be entered into
which restricts or modifies the guarantees and rights which this Constitution
grants to the individual and to the citizen.
Madam President, the purpose of this new provision proposed to be Section
10 is to show our solidarity with freedom fighters who were persecuted in
their
countries and denied the basic freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.
Senator Lorenzo Taada, true lover of liberty and staunch defender of human
rights, sent us a letter urging the Members of this Constitutional Commission
to embody this provision in our Bill of Rights. By approving this provision, we
manifest our firm belief that the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights
are universal in nature and that we condemn violations of human rights
everywhere in the world. Commissioners Francisco Soc Rodrigo, Napoleon
Rama, Jose
Calderon and I were political victims of the repressive regime of Mr. Marcos.
We have actually experienced how bitter it is to be denied the freedoms we
used to enjoy. Our hearts now beat for freedom fighters everywhere in the
world, and so I say to my dear colleagues in the Commission Let your hearts
beat
for them also.
Thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Honorable Nolledo mentioned the provisions existing in the German
Constitution regarding the right of asylum.
May I call his attention to Article 13, paragraph (2) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which reads: Everyone has the right to leave
any
country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Did the Commissioner take this into account in submitting his proposal to
enjoy the right of asylum?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, but I have a working knowledge of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, where our country is a party.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let me call the Commissioners attention more particularly to paragraph 1 of
Article 14 of the same Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads:
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution.
Does this harmonize with what the Commissioner has in mind?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: But there is this qualification because we want to be
reasonable in the exercise of the right of asylum as reflected in paragraph
2 of
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which reads:
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising
from nonpolitical crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles
of the United Nations.
Would the Commissioner accept, at the proper time, an amendment to his
amendment in order to exclude this crime regarding prosecutions genuinely
arising
from nonpolitical crimes, such as murder?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the Commissioner, being a lawyer, is aware that even
without any treaty, it is a basic principle in public international law that the
right of asylum refers only to political offenses. He will notice that in my
proposal I used the words: PERSECUTED BECAUSE OF THEIR STRUGGLE IN
DEFENSE OF
HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE LIBERATION OF THEIR COUNTRY, which sufficiently
refer to political offenses.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Just a short observation. I agree with the proposal but I wonder if the Bill of
Rights is the proper place for it.
The Bill of Rights refers to prevention of abuses of the government against
peoples rights. The statements are usually in the negative. I do not know, if
this proposal is not better placed in the Declaration of Principles.
MR. NOLLEDO: A similar provision appears in the Bill of Rights of other
constitutions of the world. The Commissioner will notice that I placed this as
Section 10 after the provisions on freedoms of our citizens. The purpose here
is to show that while we value our freedoms here, we also value the
freedoms
of other freedom-loving countries.
MR. RODRIGO: What country, for example, has it in the Bill of Rights? It is
possible that this is in the Constitution of other countries but not in the
Bill of Rights but in the Declaration of Principles.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and Mexico.
MR. RODRIGO: My concept of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of
those who reside in the Philippines but not of the few who might land on our
shores and seek asylum.
Thank you very much.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Will the distinguished Commissioner yield to a few questions?
MR. NOLLEDO: Very gladly.
MR. AZCUNA: The honorable Commissioner is, therefore, proposing the right
of asylum to be given to all who would like to seek shelter in the Philippines
from political persecution in their country. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is correct.
MR. AZCUNA: Would this asylum consist in giving temporary shelter like the
one in the Commissioners home province of Palawan, or would it include the
right of becoming part of our society including the right to education and to
work?
MR. NOLLEDO: No. It contemplates temporary shelter.
MR. AZCUNA: And once we provide temporary shelter until such time as
other states may receive them permanently, we will have satisfied the right
of asylum
as contemplated in this provision?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. AZCUNA: I see. Is there no limitation on reciprocity in this provision?
Would it be accorded to all regardless of whether or not the countries from
where they come would accord it to Filipinos under similar circumstances?
MR. NOLLEDO: In that case, I would qualify my answer because while I
generally agree with the application of the principle of reciprocity, naturally it
will be nullified by the President of the foreign country to which the foreigner
belongs, if he is a dictator. So, if we adopt the principle of reciprocity
in this case, then we also nullify this provision.
MR. AZCUNA: And, lastly, this would, in effect, also constitutionalize the rule
of international law that we should not carry back refugees to the borders
or return them to their shores where such refugees are in danger of their
lives the principle of nonrefoulement.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioners interpellations strengthened my
proposal.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, just a brief observation, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo may proceed.
MR. ROMULO: Firstly, whether someone is a freedom fighter or not in his own
country is never a black-and-white question. Secondly, I am appalled by the
suggestion that someone seeking asylum will override the national interest.
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you.
Would the proponent please yield to a few questions?
I take no issue with the merits of the right of asylum, but I would have
difficulty in accepting the proponents proposal of placing it in the Bill of
Rights. Would he be agreeable to considering it in some other pertinent
provisions of the Constitution and that the deliberations on the merits of his
proposal might as well be undertaken thereat?
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as I am concerned, this should really appear in the Bill
of Rights but Commissioner Garcia has something to say.
MR. GARCIA: I believe that this proposal could very well be placed in the
Declaration of Principles, if it is an important and universally accepted
principle of international law.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: In that case, we will defer action on this, and I will present it
to the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles. Madam President, if there is no anterior amendment, I would like
to present another amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify. Do I understand that Commissioner Nolledos
proposed amendment is being withdrawn for the time being?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President, because my coauthor states that this
should appear in the Declaration of Principles and I yield to him.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the same is withdrawn for the time being.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I understand from Commissioner Nolledo that he is
withdrawing that amendment in the meantime for possible transfer to the
Declaration of
Principles but I consider it timely at this point in time, considering that he
was mentioning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to clarify this
point. If the Commissioner is willing to yield to a few questions, I think we
should enrich our record as far as this matter is concerned.
MR. NOLLEDO: Gladly.
MR. MAAMBONG: To clarify this Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
I myself am not very clear about, let me read to the body page 124 of a book
of
the UP Law Center entitled: The New Constitution and Human Rights,
afterwards I want to find out from the Commissioner, if this is still true in the
present setting:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty but a resolution
approved by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948. As such, it
imposes no
legal obligations on member States; it merely serves as a common standard
of achievement for all peoples and all nations in promoting respect for, and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Philippines, as
one of the 51 founding members of the United Nations that helped to draft
the
Charter in San Francisco, as a member of the Commission on Human Rights
that drafted the Universal Declaration itself, and as one of the 48 members
of the
General Assembly that voted to adopt the Declaration, has a special moral
obligation to observe the precepts embodied in that historic document. The
moral
force of the Declaration is considerably enhanced by the fact that it was
adopted unanimously, without a dissenting vote. It should, therefore, be
regarded
as an authoritative interpretation of the Charter and to the extent that the
Declaration makes the intent and meaning of the Charters human rights
provisions more precise, it strengthens the obligations assumed by member
States.
I will continue with one paragraph which is my primary concern, and it reads:
In 1951, it was decided to have two Covenants instead of one a Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and a Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, but on the understanding that the two Covenants would be
simultaneously submitted for approval. The General Assembly started
consideration of the
two Covenants in 1955 and adopted both of them as well as an Optional
Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in 1966. The Philippines
ratified the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1974, but it
has so far not ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The
obvious explanation is that while the martial law regime would have no
difficulty in complying with the obligations of the Covenant on Economic,
Social and
Cultural Rights, it would not be able to accept the obligations of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the effectivity of which it would not
have
the power to suspend even as it has suspended that of the Bill of Rights of
the Philippine Constitution. It is presumed that the Philippines will ratify
the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as soon as martial rule comes to an
end.
My first question: To the Commissioners knowledge, up to the present time,
has the Philippines not ratified his Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
MR. NOLLEDO: I am not aware.
MR. SARMIENTO: It has been ratified.
MR. GUINGONA: Point of order, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment of Commissioner Nolledo has
already been withdrawn and has been scheduled to be discussed at some
other future time.
Therefore, there is no need for the body to proceed in discussing this matter.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: May I ask for the ruling of the Chair? With due respect to the
distinguished Commissioner, I think the discussions on this matter can be
resumed when we take up the Article on the Declaration of Principles.
THE PRESIDENT: That is understood, Commissioner Guingona.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Unless there is an anterior amendment, I would like to present
another amendment.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the sponsoring Committee is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, there is a special request that we move to
Section 21 which is of special interest to Commissioner Sarmiento. Because
of the
death of his father, he will have to leave the hall in a short while.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo will please give way.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, thank you, Madam President.
rights violations. So, it strengthens the provision and, for that reason, the
Committee does not accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee does not accept the amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I just make a brief addition to the explanation made by
Commissioner Bernas.
MR. TINGSON: Yes.
MR. SARMIENTO: This provision is based on our experience in handling
human rights cases. I could mention one example the case of Carl Gaspar.
Of course,
there are other cases. Carl Gaspar was given a counsel, who was their own,
by the military. He was asking for one particular lawyer, but the military
refused to provide him the assistance of that lawyer. Instead, the military
gave Carl Gaspar while in detention a lawyer who was their own; who was
not
independent, who was not competent, who simply followed the wishes of the
military.
So, based on that experience and other experiences encountered during the
past regime, we have asked the Committee for the inclusion of this provision.
MR. TINGSON: Is that not an exception to the general rule, and must we
always mention in the Constitution a detailed explanation like that? I am
referring
to the phrase one who is competent and independent. It seems to me that
it does not need to be spelled out in the Constitution.
The fact that he is given counsel means it is understood that that counsel is
competent and independent, otherwise the other provisions of a similar
nature
would also insist on stating what should be in describing whatever is given to
a particular right.
MR. SARMIENTO: If we will not place the words competent and independent
and simply state If the person cannot afford the services of a counsel, he
must
be provided with one, then this will be subject to abuse. The military or
other law-enforcement officers may simply say: We are not mandated to
provide
you with competent and independent counsel, just provide you with one as
the Constitution states.
It is to prevent that abuse that we are stating clearly and in specific terms
the words competent and independent.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, may I propose a compromise for this
impasse.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: The Honorable Tingson objects to the description of an
independent and competent counsel. I personally find that also a little
inadequate,
even if it is there because the counsel may be competent, he may be
independent, but he may not perform his duties.
As early as the case of US vs. Gimeno, which is in Volume I of the Philippine
Reports, and a plethora of decisions thereafter, the Supreme Court stated
that the right to counsel means the right to an effective counsel. The word
effective there embraces independence of mind, integrity and one who will
work for the rights of his clients.
So, may I suggest, if the Committee would agree, instead of having this line
which Commissioner Tingson finds to be a little out of place in a
constitution, that perhaps after the first sentence on line 12 we can just say
. . . and to have EFFECTIVE counsel. That is the way the Supreme Court has
always described the meaning of the right to counsel. That already includes
independence of mind and integrity. He may have integrity and
independence, and
yet if he does not move, he is not an effective counsel.
MR. TINGSON: I accept the observation, Madam President.
If that is an amendment to my amendment, then I accept it.
MR. REGALADO: . . . and to have EFFECTIVE counsel and then we delete
that second sentence which we find out of place in a constitution.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: May I propose an amendment to the amendment being
introduced by Commissioner Regalado. On line 12, I propose the addition of
the phrase OF HIS
OWN CHOICE so that the line would read: . . . to have EFFECTIVE counsel OF
HIS OWN CHOICE.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, may I just say one word and then I will be
through.
This is no big deal to me because I am in favor of the phrase competent and
independent counsel. I just do not like the idea of insinuating that there
are incompetent and nonindependent lawyers because all lawyers are
supposed to take the lawyers oath just like doctors. Therefore, they are
supposed to be
competent and independent. Besides, in answer to Commissioner Sarmiento,
when a prisoner is not capable of selecting his own counsel, he always has
his
family, his relatives and friends who will help him select a counsel preferably
of his and their choice.
I will now ask for a vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: May I be clarified on the status of the amendment being
proposed by Commissioner Tingson. Is he withdrawing his amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: No, he is not. I have not heard him withdraw. He is
explaining his amendment. Is Commissioner Tingson withdrawing?
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I just do not want to be misunderstood. I
want competence and I want independence, but if the Commissioner would
improve my
amendment, I will go along for a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Aquino?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may I request a suspension of the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 11:27a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:31 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. TREAS: But you must prove their conspiracy, that he was part of the
scheme.
MR. SUAREZ: But that could be a fabricated confession in order to implicate
the alleged coconspirators.
MR. TREAS: Precisely, the purpose of my proposed amendment is to limit it
because the rule says it is not admissible in any proceeding.
MR. SUAREZ: Does not the Gentleman believe that, as stated, it is adequate,
sufficient and will not unnecessarily complicate the situation?
MR. TREAS: Precisely, my purpose is to make it not admissible against the
party whose right was violated, but could be admissible against the person
who
violated his right.
MR. SUAREZ: As I said, the consequences are rather horrible from the point
of view of those who would be implicated unnecessarily.
MR. TREAS: Precisely, insofar as those persons are concerned, we have the
rules on evidence protecting them.
MR. SUAREZ: Would the Gentleman not consider withdrawing his proposal so
as not to complicate the situation? I find this particular provision already
adequate, Madam President.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear from the Committee first.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, in the light of the objections that have been
raised, the Committee would leave this issue to the body for discussion.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Could we just say, shall be inadmissible IN EVIDENCE AGAINST
HIM and eliminate for any purpose in any proceeding?
Under the Rules on Evidence, Rule 130, Section 22, any act, declaration or
omission of a party as to irrelevant facts may be taken in evidence against
him.
Under the same rule, Section 25 on admission of a third party, that is not
save the lives of prisoners and staff, the amucks are separated from the
rest of the inmates. I am just clarifying it.
I do not believe solitary confinement should be prohibited because in case of
riots and disorders in prison, that word SOLITARY has a significance in
penology.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I think we have to distinguish between
Section 21 and Section 22.
In Section 22, solitary confinement may be allowed in the execution of a
sentence. But Section 21 pre-supposes a situation where there is no
conviction
yet. He is still presumed to be innocent.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am glad about that, so that in case somebody checks the
record of these debates, we are certain that what we are prescribing are the
safehouses and the solitary confinements, not the solitary confinements
necessary to save lives in case of a riot.
MR. DAVIDE: That may be taken up when amendments are introduced to
Section 22, not to 21, where you have a detained person who is still
presumed to be
innocent because he had not even undergone trial in court.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, my observation is regarding the use of the
phrase AND OTHER SIMILAR FORMS OF detention.
Incommunicado and solitary have a specific meaning. Why enlarge that
by saying, AND OTHER SIMILAR FORMS OF detention?
MR. DAVIDE: No, it is not AND OTHER.
MR. RODRIGO: What detention is similar to incommunicado? What detention
is similar to solitary? It is either incommunicado or not incommunicado. It is
either solitary or not solitary. But what is the meaning of AND OTHER
SIMILAR FORMS OF detention? Will the Gentleman give an example?
MR. DAVIDE: May I be allowed to explain?
In the first place, we did not use the word AND. It is OR OTHER SIMILAR
FORMS.
The military or the police may be very imaginative and creative. They can
think of several ways of violating or circumventing a particular prohibition.
So, we are now looking toward the future, the possibility of another creation
of a form similar to incommunicado or secret detention. Science is always in
progress and they might think of other modes of detention later.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us use our imagination also like the police. What would
then be similar to incommunicado detention?
MR. GARCIA: May I answer that?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. GARCIA: Sensory deprivation.
MR. RODRIGO: How is that?
MR. GARCIA: In Colombia I remember seeing people blindfolded for days until
they no longer have any sensory perception of what is going on around.
MR. RODRIGO: So the Gentleman agrees to the amendment. But in the
committee report, there is no such phrase AND OTHER SIMILAR FORMS OF
detention. I would
be commending the Committee as a matter of fact.
MR. GARCIA: I think it is a good amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: The Committee thinks it is a good amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, another amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us go back. This was originally the amendment of
Commissioner de los Reyes, then amended by Commissioner Davide, which
amendment to the
amendment was accepted by the Committee.
Is there any objection?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I have no objection to the substance, but I object to putting it in
the Bill of Rights.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, as
amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 38 votes in favor and none against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: My amendment is still on Section 21. With the
acceptance of this amendment, I move that the sentence which has just
been approved be
transferred to another section because it seems to be out of place in this
section which refers to obtaining confession. In other words, the sentence
No
force, violence, threat or intimidation shall be used against him should be
followed by ANY CONFESSION OR ADMISSION OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF
THIS OR THE
PRECEDING SECTION SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE AGAINST HIM because the
words Secret detention which we have approved seems to disrupt the flow
of the letter and
spirit of the provision.
THE PRESIDENT: So, where would the Gentleman place that sentence of
secret detention places, et cetera?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I intend to introduce another section between lines 23
and 24 which will read: NO PERSON SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO TORTURE OR
TO CRUEL,
DEGRADING OR INHUMAN TREATMENT, then Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado or similar forms of detention are prohibited.
MR. RODRIGO: That is where that should be placed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, Section 22 refers to punishment after conviction, but
this refers to the inhuman condition before conviction while the prisoner is
under investigation or detention, the one which I am introducing.
THE PRESIDENT: Can that be just a separate paragraph?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Precisely, I was saying that between lines 23 and 24, I
will introduce a new section which reads: NO PERSON SHALL BE SUBJECTED
TO TORTURE
OR TO CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN TREATMENT. This will be followed by
the one we have just approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I suggest that it should be inserted after prohibited.
MR. DE LOS REYES: How?
MR. DAVIDE: It will read: NOR SHALL ANY CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING
TREATMENT BE INFLICTED.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a substitution of Section 22?
MR. DAVIDE: No, still Section 21, because the proposal is under Section 21.
So, it should be linked to what was just approved. There is a prohibition in
the manner of detention and it should be followed by how the accused or the
detained individual must be treated, instead of putting it as another section.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 12:10 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 12:12 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee is accepting the following modification: On line
15 towards the end, after the word counsel and the period (.), start a new
paragraph to read: No TORTURE, force, violence, threat . . .
In other words, we add TORTURE after No and this is made a new
paragraph for emphasis.
With the permission of the Committee, I believe that the statement in the
1973 Constitution is preferable and more in accordance with the Bill of
Rights.
The section as appearing in the 1973 Constitution states:
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right.
It has the same substance, Madam President, but instead of stressing the
duty of the investigating official, we stress the right of the person arrested or
detained.
MR. COLAYCO: I would like to comment on that because I was the one
responsible for this change. We had that statement on the right of the
accused in the
1935 Constitution. We found from experience that this was ignored probably
because of the ignorance of the persons or officials who were supposed to
honor
that. So, we felt that by making it a duty on the part of the investigator to
inform the accused or suspect of his rights, we made it a more explicit,
emphatic statement of the right of the accused. As the Gentleman said, the
substance is there but the form of stating the right became a positive
obligation.
MR. PADILLA: When we speak of a right and the provision in the 1973
Constitution is clear when it stated: shall have the right necessarily, if
the
detainee or the arrested person has a right, that imposes a duty on the
official to inform him of that right of the detainee to remain silent and to
have
counsel. Right and duty are correlative when one person has a right, there
must be a corresponding duty on another.
What I am proposing is that as this is the Bill of Rights, therefore, we must
stress the rights. When we say, shall have the right, that is mandatory.
MR. COLAYCO: That is not how the peace enforcement officers understand it.
May we ask that the matter be subjected to a vote.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Supplementary to the point raised by the Vice-President, it is
my apprehension that the way it is formulated would be susceptible of a
possible
death penalty just last May, and the Supreme Court of California somehow
found a technicality to declare the initiative unconstitutional. So, the people
of
California filed a recall against four of the Justices of the California Supreme
Court that case is pending and I do not know its outcome. But that is
just to illustrate that at some point the people, as a rule, should govern in
this matter. They may wish to return the death penalty. That is why I
support the Monsod amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized for a few
interpellations?
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
I think the Honorable Monsod is still busy conferring.
MR. MONSOD: Excuse me, I am sorry.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman may finish his conference with the Honorable
Rodrigo; I am willing to wait.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman advisedly used the words heinous crimes,
whatever is the pronunciation. Will the Gentleman give examples of heinous
crimes?
For example, would the head of an organized syndicate in dope distribution
or dope smuggling fall within the qualification of a heinous offender such as
to
preclude the application of the principle of abolition of death penalty?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President. That is one of the possible crimes that
would qualify for a heinous crime. Another would be organized murder. In
other
words, yesterday there were many arguments for and against, and they all
had merit. But in the contemporary society, we recognize the sacredness of
human
life and I think it was Honorable Laurel who said this yesterday it is only
God who gives and takes life. However, the voice of the people is also the
voice of God, and we cannot presume to have the wisdom of the ages.
Therefore, it is entirely possible in the future that circumstances may arise
which we
should not preclude today. We know that this is a very difficult question. The
fact that the arguments yesterday were quite impassioned and meritorious
merely tell us that this is far from a well-settled issue. At least in my personal
opinion, we would like the death penalty to be abolished. However; in
the future we should allow the National Assembly, in its wisdom and as
representatives of the people, to still impose the death penalty for the
common
good, in specific cases.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
I would like to pursue some more the Gentlemans definition of heinous
crimes. Would the brutal murder of a rape victim be considered as falling
within
that classification?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, yes, particularly, if it is a person in
authority. He would, therefore, add as an aggravating circumstance to the
crime the
abuse of his position in authority.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, just a few clarificatory questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Is it the purpose of the proponent that upon the adoption of this
provision of this Constitution, existing death penalties in the statute books
are to be abolished?
MR. MONSOD: The death penalty would be abolished upon the ratification of
the Constitution, and I am not proposing, for example, that the next sentence
be
deleted because a favorable law that is passed should benefit those that now
have a death penalty on their head. If the National Assembly so decides to
reimpose it in specific cases, then it is prospective.
FR. BERNAS: So, the Gentleman says that he is not asking for the deletion of
lines 29 to 30 on the death penalty? Is that correct?
MR. MONSOD: No, I am not asking for its deletion.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Natividad would like to speak.
because pickpockets then were punished by the death penalty was being
hanged, the audience watching the hanging were being snitched. That is how
far the deterrents of death penalty had gone.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I believe the arguments for and against
were discussed very thoroughly yesterday, including those of the
Commissioner, and we
do not want to revive all the arguments at this time. I think all of us have had
time to reflect on this issue, and there is no conclusion that it is a
heinous crime or that it can be the most heinous crime of all. All we are
saying is, we would agree that, as of today, it should be abolished, precisely
because, at least in my mind, there is a preponderance of reasons at this
time to abolish it. But what we are saying, is, perhaps, we should not
completely
foreclose the possibility that the conditions and the situations might change
for very specific reasons.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I propose an amendment to the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: The amendment to the amendment is as follows: On line 28
after the word punishment, delete the comma (,), insert the word
INFLICTED to be
followed by a period (.) and delete the rest of the section so that Section 22
will read: Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment INFLICTED.
May I give the reasons to my amendment to the amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner will please proceed.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, it was rightly stated by the sponsor,
Commissioner Bernas, that the issue here is whether or not we should
provide this
matter in the Constitution or leave it to the discretion of our legislature.
Arguments pro and con have been given there were arguments in favor of
the
death penalty, and arguments in favor of abolishing death penalty. But my
stand is, we should leave this to the discretion of the legislature.
The proposed amendment is halfhearted. It is awkward because we will, in
effect, repeal by our Constitution a piece of legislation and after repealing
this
piece of legislation, tell the legislature that we have repealed the law and
that the legislature can go ahead and enact it again. I think this is not
worthy of a constitutional body like ours. If we will leave the matter of the
death penalty to the legislature, let us leave it completely to the
discretion of the legislature, but let us not have this half-baked provision. We
have many provisions in the Revised Penal Code imposing the death penalty.
We will now revoke or repeal these pieces of legislation by means of the
Constitution, but at the same time say that it is up to the legislature to
impose
this again.
Madam President, as I said, all the arguments have already been given. I just
want to say something on the statement of the Catholic Bishops Conference
of
the Philippines on death penalty, which was mentioned here. I do not have a
copy of it but I remember having read this some time ago. That statement
was
made in connection with the proposed bill at the Batasan. It was not in
connection with a constitutional provision; it was in connection with a bill, an
ordinary proposed statute at the Batasan. If I remember right, the substance
of that statement was this: They said that the Church does not have an
official stand on whether it is against or in favor of the death penalty. As a
matter of fact, one thing I remember is the statement that the two St.
Thomases were not in agreement. St. Thomas Aquinas, I think, was in favor
of the death penalty; St. Thomas Moore was against it. And if I also
remember
right, there were some Popes who were in favor of the death penalty and
some Popes who were against. But the substance of the statement was that,
considering the circumstances of the times, the Bishops believed that a
legislation abolishing the death penalty was timely, but not that the Bishops
based
their recommendation on the nature, the temper of the times. The temper
and condition of the times change, Madam President, and so, I think we
should leave
this matter to the legislature to enact statutes depending on the changing
needs of the times. Let us entrust this completely to the legislature
composed
of representatives elected by the people.
I do not say that we are not competent. But we have to admit the fact that
we are not elected by the people, and if we are going to entrust this to the
legislature, let us not be half-baked nor halfhearted about it. Let us entrust it
to the legislature 100 percent.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
yesterday for
lack of material time I was not able to present, plus the statistical data in
support thereof.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. REGALADO: I have already given my reasons, but I am aware that there
are a number of us here in the Commission who, not being lawyers, may not
have
adequately appreciated what I stated yesterday when I said that there are
those who fear that capital punishment, if maintained is irrevocable. I say
that
fear is unfounded because there are enough safeguards. I did not elaborate
on that yesterday but I will do so now just for clarification.
There are enough procedural safeguards in our law, against an unjust or an
improvident imposition of the death penalty. Procedurally, the accused
always
enjoys the presumption of innocence. Second, he is always entitled to a
counsel de officio, both in the trial and in the appellate stages, and the court
does not just appoint a run-of-the-mill lawyer as counsel de officio. Third, in
the imposition of the death penalty, the court still requires that evidence
be presented; although the accused has pleaded guilty. The court still
requires the prosecution to introduce sufficient evidence beyond reasonable
doubt to
justify the imposition of the death penalty. Fourth, there is automatic review
of the death penalty imposed by the trial courts.
Substantive safeguards are also provided by law. The death penalty cannot
be imposed if the accused at the time of the imposition of the death
sentence is
over 70 years of age. As of now, the vote of 10 justices of the Supreme Court
is required and, if it cannot be obtained, life imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua shall be the penalty; a minor below 18 at the time of the
commission of the offense cannot be punished with the death penalty unlike
what happened
in Malaysia or what we have read about that 16-year-old girl in the United
States. In the Philippines, no minor below 18 years of age can ever be
imposed
the death penalty because he is entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance which lowers the penalty by one or two degrees or even more.
Secondly, even if the Supreme Court itself imposes the death penalty, the
death penalty cannot be carried out permanently, first, if the accused is over
70
years of age at the time the sentence is to be carried out, and second, where
Why are those who seek the abolition of the death penalty so much in mortal
fear of the possibility of error? We are only human. I remember
Commissioner
Ople at one time stated that those who voted for the waiver of the claim over
Sabah are not less patriotic than those who insisted on maintaining the
claim. Along this same vein but without the benefit of this rhetorical flourish
and the inevitable body English, I will also say that those of us who stand
for the retention of the death penalty are not as bloodthirsty as the
abolitionists would picture us to be.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I am very happy about the intervention made
by Commissioner Regalado because it shows the tremendous reluctance of
Philippine
society to impose the death penalty. The reluctance is so grave that so many
obstacles are put up against the execution of the death penalty and judges
agonize whether they have to impose a death penalty or not. Legislators
have made it more difficult for the death penalty to be imposed. Thus, this
total
abolition of the death penalty by the Constitution facilitates a everything for
the judges and for the legislators. It removes the agonizing process of
having to decide whether the death penalty should be imposed by them or
not.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, just a short rejoinder.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the issue was interminably discussed
yesterday. Since we have some affair this afternoon, I move that we take a
vote on the
amendment of Senator Rodrigo.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair just wants to be clarified. The thrust of the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo is that the issue be left to
the
legislature rather than it be included in the Constitution. Is that correct?
MR. RODRIGO: Completely, because the amendment which I seek to amend
also gives power to the legislature, but halfway. In my case, I would like to
leave it
to the legislature completely and not halfway.
I think some Members arrived late, so, I will restate my amendment. On page
4, Section 22, line 28, I propose to remove the comma (,) after the word
punishment and to insert the word INFLICTED followed by a period (.) and
then to delete the rest of the section. The amended phrase will read:
Excessive
fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
INFLICTED.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Rodrigo, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand. )
The results show 18 votes in favor and 19 votes against; the amendment is
lost.
NOMINAL VOTING
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, in order to be very sure, I ask for a nominal
voting. Since it is a very close vote, I move for a nominal voting but without
the explanation of votes anymore. dctai
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Nominal voting on the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo is,
therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the amendment.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Section 22 will read as follows: Excessive fines
shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
INFLICTED.
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on the amendment, and the
Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
No
Jamir
Yes
Alonto
Laurel
No
Aquino
No
Lerum
No
Azcuna
Yes
Maambong
No
Bacani
No
Monsod
No
Bengzon
Yes
Natividad
No
Nieva
Yes
Bennagen
Bernas
No
Nolledo
No
Rosario Braid
No
Ople
No
Brocka
No
Padilla
No
Quesada
No
Rama
Yes
Regalado
Yes
Calderon
Castro de
Yes
Colayco
Concepcion
Abstain
Reyes de los
No
Davide
No
Rigos
Yes
Foz
No
Rodrigo
Yes
Garcia
No
Romulo
Gascon
No
Rosales
Guingona
Yes
Sarmiento
Yes
Yes
Tadeo
Treas
Yes
Uka
Yes
Villacorta
Tan
No
Tingson
Yes
Villegas
Colayco
Bennagen
Rosales
Calderon
Suarez
Villegas
Villacorta
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 17 votes in favor, 22 against and 1
abstention; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a pending motion by Commissioner Monsod.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Monsod repeat his amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, my amendment is to add after the word
inflicted on line 29 the clause UNLESS FOR COMPELLING REASONS
INVOLVING HEINOUS CRIMES
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROVIDES FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the position of the Committee on this proposed
amendment of Commissioner Monsod?
FR. BERNAS: We will put the amendment to a vote.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: The intention of the provision here is, upon the ratification of
this Constitution, the death penalty already imposed is automatically
without need for any action by the President commuted.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, because the wording here is: Death penalty already
imposed shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua The power of
commutation is a
presidential prerogative.
FR. BERNAS: Or we can say ARE HEREBY commuted, if that is clearer. But
that is the intention.
MR. REGALADO: Does the Commissioner mean are hereby reduced?
FR. BERNAS: Commuted to the death penalty.
MR. REGALADO: It shall be REDUCED to reclusion perpetua?
FR. BERNAS: To reclusion perpetua, yes.
MR. REGALADO: Maybe the Commissioner should eliminate the word
commute because we are invading the presidential prerogative.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Gentleman proposing an amendment to the
amendment?
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just one clarificatory question.
On the assumption that this proposed amendment will be granted, what
would happen to the laws which presently punish certain penal offenses by
death,
because those laws may have to be repealed later by the National Assembly?
But as of this moment, there are so many penal offenses which are
punishable by
death. What would be the effect of the grant of these amendments?
FR. BERNAS: The effect is the abolition of the death penalty from those
statutes only the death penalty. The statute is not abolished, but the
penalty is
abolished.
minimum period. Under the present state of the law, the minimum period is
17 years, four
months and one day to 20 years; the medium period is life imprisonment or
reclusion perpetua; the maximum period is death. We take away the death
penalty
and here is an accused charged with the crime of murder. There are no
mitigating circumstances; there is no aggravating circumstance, and,
therefore, he
should get the medium period. What would now be the medium period
during the interregnum until Congress shall have provided a law which would
implement
this new provision?
FR. BERNAS: We admit that the abolition of the death penalty creates a
problem for judges and legislators; but I am sure they will be equal to the
problem.
MR. REGALADO: I have no quarrel about that but we will have to await
creation of a legislature. Perhaps, the elections will be in the month of May.
Perhaps, they will get around to passing that enabling law accommodating
these changes a few years later. During that interregnum, what law will be
applied?
FR. BERNAS: Certainly, the penalties lower than death remain.
MR. REGALADO: That would be reclusion perpetua. But the range of the
penalty for murder consists of three periods. The maximum period of
reclusion temporal
under the present status is the minimum period for the penalty for murder.
The medium period is reclusion perpetua. The maximum period is death. If
we now
remove the death penalty, we will, therefore, have a range of penalty of 17
years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years of reclusion temporal up to reclusion
perpetua. You cannot divide reclusion perpetua into two. While it has a
duration of 30 years, it is an indivisible penalty. Where do we get the medium
period now until such time that Congress gets around to accommodate this
amendment?
FR. BERNAS: As I said, this is a matter which lawyers can argue with judges
about. All we are saying is, the judges cannot impose the death penalty.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I think the Committee can suggest a transitory provision for
this. We will have no quarrel about this, if there is a corresponding transitory
provision.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, before the vote, may I just mention an
oversight that this amendment is a consolidation of the proposals of
Commissioners de
los Reyes, Suarez and this Representation.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The body will proceed to vote on .this proposed amendment
of Commissioners Monsod, Suarez and de los Reyes. The Chair believes that
the
amendment is clear enough and there is no need to repeat the same.
As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand )
The results show 23 votes in favor and 12 votes against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam President.
I speak in behalf of several proponents of this proposed amendment; namely,
Commissioners Ricardo Romulo, Wilfrido Villacorta, Edmundo Garcia, Lino
Brocka,
Regalado Maambong, Rustico de los Reyes, Cirilo Rigos and Teodulo
Natividad.
We suggest a new section immediately following Section 22, the one that
abolishes the death penalty with amendments, as amended, to read as
follows: IN THE
CASE OF GRAVE ABUSE COMMITTED AGAINST THE RIGHT TO LIFE WHETHER
BY MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY OR POLICE OR THEIR ADVERSARY, THE
PRINCIPLE OF COMMAND
RESPONSIBILITY SHALL APPLY AND THE STATE MUST COMPENSATE THE
VICTIMS.
May I give a brief explanation of the reason behind this proposal, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople has five minutes.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
We are right now engaged in a very historic deliberation of the abolition of
the death penalty. But there are more eminent forms of the death penalty
experienced in the lives of millions of our people today for whom, probably,
even this momentous subject of the abolition will be one of mere academic
interest. The threats to their lives, in many embattled areas of the country,
are very real in the form of institutionalized brutality, whether this comes
from the military or their adversaries in the field. The people can see a larger
and overriding issue in terms of the perceived threats to human life that
now hover like a spectre over millions of our countrymen, especially in areas
contested by rival armed forces. Even the spectacle of mass disappearances,
salvagings and extrajudicial executions has become so routine as no longer
to excite the public. Both the military and the rebels they have to contend
with, for these are known to have resorted to such crimes under the pressure
of their respective circumstances.
There is a great clamor, Madam President, for the Constitutional Commission
to address this issue, which is also endemic, to much of the Third World with
their alternating police states and democratic regimes. And may I tell this
Commission that such abuses against human lives of the ordinary citizens
occur
because the troops who commit them are convinced that this is an approach
sanctioned by their respective superiors or is part of an unwritten policy. The
pressure of legal reform must, therefore, be directed to the officers who
command these troops in the case of the AFP, the appropriate levels in the
chain of command; in the case of the NPA, the commanders under the
military department and even the central committee of the CPP. Such a
provision in the
Bill of Rights would insert a solid protection between the sword of the State
and the people who are exposed to conditions of political terror especially
in areas contested by rival arms.
This will also be the first time, Madam President, if the Committee and the
Commission decide to adopt this amendment, that the responsibility of the
armed
rebels or of their commanders is acknowledged on the same plane as their
MR. GUINGONA: May I ask the honorable proponent whether the use of
presumption could be assumed to mean disputable and not conclusive?
MR. OPLE: Yes. In this case, Madam President, may I call the attention of
Commissioner Guingona to the fact that there has been some slight change
in the
text.
MR. GUINGONA: I see.
MR. OPLE: We no longer speak of presumption of responsibility but of the
application of the principle of command responsibility because of some legal
advice that had been furnished the sponsors, especially from Commissioner
Romulo, to the effect that the principle of command responsibility is already
supported by the accumulated military rules and regulations and
administrative, if not legal, jurisprudence pertaining to the application of
command
responsibility in situations contemplated by this proposed amendment.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
Would the honorable Commissioner accept the amendment to remove the
period (.) after victims and add: OF GOVERNMENT FORCES OR OF MILITARY
OR POLICE
FORCES OF THE GOVERNMENT.
MR. OPLE: So that, in effect, the Gentleman will remove the obligation of
compensation to the victims of nongovernmental forces?
MR. GUINGONA: Of the adversary forces.
MR. OPLE: Adversary forces.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, this is an amendment to the amendment, Madam
President.
MR. OPLE: We will, therefore, leave completely uncompensated the victims of
nongovernmental institutionalized brutalities.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, Madam President, under my proposed amendment to
the amendment of the Commissioner.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
and, therefore,
they have become coauthors, together with Commissioner Guingona.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I wonder why we are already in the period of
amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: We are in the period of amendments.
MR. PADILLA: Why are we in the period of amendments when there has been
no interpellation and debate? Precisely, I want to speak against this proposed
amendment because this is contrary to old principles of criminal law.
THE PRESIDENT: So, Commissioner Padilla is seeking recognition to speak
against the Ople, et al amendment.
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I do not know about presumption or the
principle of command responsibility. I do not know whether that is recognized
under
military law, but I am certain that under the Revised Penal Code, we do not
recognize criminal liability based on so-called command responsibility unless
that command responsibility would fall under Article 17 as to who are the
principals those who directly force or induce others to commit the crime.
Responsibility under the Penal Code would refer to the principals,
accomplices and accessories as enumerated under Article 16. Article 17
provides for
three kinds of principals: by direct participation, by direct inducement and by
indispensable cooperation. Should there be conspiracy among several
accused
and such conspiracy is established, then there will be collective
responsibility, otherwise, there is only individual or separate responsibility.
Madam President, compensation would be in the nature of a civil liability.
Under the Penal Code, a person criminally liable is also civilly liable, but the
person who is liable civilly is the person who is accused and convicted as
principal. Here we make the state compensate, but the state is not the
accused.
Maybe higher officers in the military, if they are specifically charged and are
convicted, will be civilly liable, but not the state for the crimes
committed by others even if they are public officers.
Moreover, this speaks of flagrant and systematic abuses. Today this really
amounts to crimes against persons, particularly murder. What about other
crimes
of the Penal Code like rape, crime against chastity, or kidnapping with
ransom, crime against personal liberty and security? Will this be limited only
to
abuses against life? It is not even clear whether the victim has actually died
as a consequence or as a causal effect of the criminal acts of the accused.
With regard to presumption, there are legal presumptions in law, but they
must be based on facts from which the law infers or deduces a legal
presumption.
There can be no presumption of liability because that would be contrary to
the presumption of innocence.
And so, Madam President, I believe that this proposed new section should not
be included, even if it be amended by corrective or perfectionary suggestions
because it violates the fundamental principles of criminal responsibility and
civil liability under the Penal Code.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro seeks recognition.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
May I ask the proponent of this provision some questions, please.
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: What does the Gentleman mean by command responsibility
when he speaks of command responsibility for those in higher authority?
MR. RODRIGO: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: What are we discussing now? Is it the original proposed
amendment to the amendment as amended?
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment of Commissioner Guingona has been
accepted by Commissioner Ople. That is what the Chair understands.
MR. RODRIGO: Which are we discussing now? Is it the amendment of
Commissioner Ople, as amended, as agreed upon by the three
Commissioners? I just want to
ask questions also, and I want to know what the basis of my questions will
be. Is it the original or the original as amended?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, we are now discussing the original as amended,
and may I restate it in its latest permutation as a result of the consultations
on the floor: IN THE CASE OF GRAVE ABUSES COMMITTED AGAINST THE
RIGHT TO LIFE BY MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY OR POLICE FORCES AND THEIR
ADVERSARY, THERE SHALL
BE A PRESUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE IN HIGHER AUTHORITY
AND THE STATE MUST COMPENSATE THE VICTIMS OF THE GOVERNMENT
FORCES.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, that will be the basis of our discussion.
MR. RODRIGO: So the command responsibility is not there anymore.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that satisfactory?
MR. OPLE: Yes, it has disappeared in the latest permutation, Madam
President.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I continue, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner de Castro may continue.
MR. DE CASTRO: As I read it, there shall be a presumption of responsibility
for those in higher authority. Is that correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: This refers to the apparent abuses of the military and police
forces, and responsibility for those in higher authority. How high will the
authority be which will responsible for the abuses?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, this will depend on the available evidence, and
this is a disputable presumption which means that the higher authority can
overthrow it by demonstrating lack of responsibility.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then, if that is so, nobody will be responsible to
compensate the victims because the higher authority may refuse to accept
responsibility.
Is that right?
MR. OPLE: They can overthrow the presumption of responsibility. May I, in
this regard, recall the recent Escalante massacre. There was a board of
inquiry
created. A minority in that board held the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines responsible.
Madam President, while the objective is really very good, it will endanger the
stability of the state and society.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I believe the Members of this Commission
are all concerned about human rights, but we can put one safeguard on top
of another.
Every little thing we are trying to cover until what we have created is a
ponderous Constitution that is not only pro-human rights but anti-state. I
have
to speak against this, Madam President. Besides, as formulated, all victims
whether of lost commands of insurgents or even of plain bandits can
claim
that they are victims of government forces. So, there is no balance here. This
will destabilize our country; there will be suits and all kinds of claims;
and there is no way by which we can really arrive at the truth.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is a clamor that we vote on this
amendment.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not yet heard from the Committee.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee submits this to resolution by the body.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: May I request a minute for a brief rejoinder to the arguments of
those who have spoken against this proposed amendment.
The Bill of Rights, as we know and as many other countries know it today,
has largely been unchanged in its general frame from 1791 when the first set
of
amendments to the American Constitution was ratified by the American
people. It was a bill of rights intended mainly to shield the generation of
Americans
and their posterity from possibilities of abuse in the conditions of that society
which has now become the most prosperous on the face of the earth. But in
the Bill of Rights, when today we are privileged to draft a Constitution for the
Filipino people, we cannot be insensitive to the palpable realities of our
own time. And as I said earlier, although the death penalty is abolished
under this new draft Constitution, there are grosser forms of death penalty
that
are being experienced by many thousands of our people in the countryside
extrajudicial dealings, like salvagings and massacres. And if we do not
take
cognizance of these realities in this Constitutional Commission, I am afraid
we are not living up to our historic mission. Moreover, Madam President, the
concern about the determination of the truth, the abuse of the presumption
of responsibility, the compensation for victims, all of these will be subject to
standards of rigor that the future legislature will establish under this
Constitution. We cannot settle all foreseen consequences right here on this
floor.
But with this amendment, we, as I said in the beginning, will insert a shield of
protection between the sword of the state which sometimes goes amuck and
the right to life of many thousands of our people who experience this
menace, so that when they go to bed at night, they know they will wake up
in the
morning. This is a shield of protection for them, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we vote on the amendment of
Commissioner Ople.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the proponent accept an amendment to his proposed amendment?
MR. OPLE: May I hear the amendment, Madam President?
MR. SUAREZ: The amendment is to delete the first sentence of the proposed
amendment, so that the proposed amendment, as amended, will now read:
THE STATE
SHALL COMPENSATE THE VICTIMS OF MILITARY ATROCITIES IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. OPLE: I am afraid I cannot accept the proposed amendment to the
amendment, Madam President.
Madam President, the proposed amendment means that we shall wean away
our provision from the American formulation without, however, preventing us
from
availing of the various interpretations given by U.S. decisions which keep on
changing over the years. It is our hope that our own courts will try to
discern, on its own, the meaning and extent of the free expression and press
provision of our Constitution and will not be slavish to American
interpretations.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, the Committee does not accept the
amendment.
It is the position of the Committee that absolutely nothing that is sought to
be protected by the amendment is not already protected by the present
provision.
The present provision is a provision found in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions. It has been a subject of extensive jurisprudence explaining
what it means,
what its limitations are. Certainly, it does not suggest that freedom is
absolute. Certainly, it prohibits prior restraints. Certainly, it prohibits
subsequent punishment. There is really nothing in the proposed amendment
which reflects anything that is not already reflected in the old provision. In
the
explanation of Commissioner Foz, he said that his formulation suggests that
freedom is a social responsibility, but there is nothing in his provision which
explicitly says more than what is already said in the old provision. And when
we speak of the right of the people, we are actually cutting down the rights
guaranteed by this provision because people are human persons. By limiting
that protection to the right of the people, we are removing the protection for
corporate entities like publishers, publishing companies, newspaper
companies, and so forth. Because of all these and because the new
formulation really
adds nothing and, in fact, debilitates the old provision, the Committee does
not accept the amendment.
MR. FOZ: May I respond to what Father Bernas has said.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. FOZ: Precisely, the intention of including the word people is to give the
provision on freedom of expression and of the press a social dimension. We
know very well that this freedom is, in the first instance, exercised by editors,
publishers and owners of print and broadcast media. But in exercising
this freedom, there is the general tendency to think that it is a freedom of
the editors, publishers and managers of print and broadcast media. We are
trying here to emphasize and drive home the point that the exercise of
freedom should have a relation to the common good. This is a reminder to
them that
whenever they write or express an opinion, it is to be so expressed so that
the public good is achieved in. the end. That is the purpose of putting
emphasis on the word people in this provision which does not appear in the
traditional provision on freedom of the press and of expression.
Thank you, Madam President.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: May I be allowed also to add to that. Commissioner Foz
has explained the first part of the amendment and the second part of that
amendment follows that first sentence, which says: THE STATE SHALL
PROTECT THIS FREEDOM THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STRUCTURES
THAT ENABLE ACCESS TO
INFORMATION WHICH PROMOTES SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION. I
admit that during the past years, freedom of the press and of expression
were enjoyed only
by a few, by those who had access to information and knowledge. This
concept of freedom has come out of the liberal democracies where there was
very little
information disparity between the center and the periphery. But in
developing countries like the Philippines where 70 percent of the people
have little
access to knowledge and information, there is little social and political
awareness. Many are not able to exercise this freedom to the maximum. So I
submit
that the state should protect the right to freedom of information by building
the necessary structures to enable the people to truly participate.
The old traditional concept of freedom did not help the majority of our
people. It was enjoyed by a few who have access to information. Our
amendment is to
locate freedom in a different context, in the social context of the developing
country like the Philippines. So, I request that this proposal be submitted
to the body.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the position of the Committee with respect to the
second part of the amendment?
FR. BERNAS: The Committee does not accept the second part of the
amendment either.
MR. FOZ: I suggest that we vote first on the first part of the amendment
which I presented, and then we proceed to the second part of it.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, may I be permitted to say a few words?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I would like to say that the present provision, which states: No
law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .
is expressed in the negative, which is stronger than a positive statement that
there be a guarantee of the right to freedom of speech and of the press. The
negative phrase No law is not only prohibitive but also more emphatic than
a positive statement of the same concept. For example, under Section 1, it
says: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law. That, Madam President, is stronger than Every person is
entitled to life, liberty and property.
With regard to the mention of the people, the present provision mentions the
people but only in relation, specifically, to the right to peaceably assemble
and petition for redress of grievances. There is no mention of the people in
the first part because, as stated by Commissioner Bernas, that is not only
limited to the people; it is very extensive. What I want to stress is that the
present provision better expresses, with more emphasis, the right or the
freedom of speech and of the press.
THE PRESIDENT: We will then proceed to vote on the first part of the
amendment as proposed by Commissioner Foz.
Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Foz, please
raise their hand.
MR. LAUREL: Madam President, I would like to say that there is no need of
dividing the two proposals read by the two coauthors.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the request of Commissioner Foz and, therefore, we
will agree to it.
MR. LAUREL: I think there seems to be no disagreement among all the
Members of this body regarding the motives of the two coauthors. Actually, I
agree with
everything that they said, but it so only happens that what they seek is
already here in the provision. There is nothing to add to it. As a matter of
fact,
it is well-understood not only in American jurisprudence but also in Philippine
jurisprudence. So what they want is already here and the language has been
so interpreted and so emphasized in court rulings. I do not think there can be
any misunderstanding as to what the provision reads. As a matter of fact, I
like it very much when our distinguished friend and colleague, Commissioner
Foz, referred to traditional provisions and also to what is known in political
law as freedom of expression which refers, in brief, to all that is provided for
freedom of speech and of the press and the right of the people to
peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Everything that he said, we all agree with. That is so because there is
nothing
that we already understand from the original provision that is not understood
by everyone else, and I do not see any reason why there should be any
changes.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
I believe it is not wise to vote separately on these two sentences, because if
the first sentence loses and the second sentence wins, the second sentence
refers to the freedoms which are contained in the first sentence, so the
second sentence cannot stand. I suggest that we vote on the whole proposed
amendment.
MR. FOZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, what is the pleasure of Commissioner Foz?
MR. FOZ: In response to what has been said, I still insist that the first
amendment be treated separately.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: All right. The Chair rules in favor of Commissioner Foz.
As many as are in favor of the first part of the amendment to Section 9,
please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 10 votes in favor and 15 against; the amendment is lost.
Let us proceed to vote on the second part of the proposed amendment, that
of Commissioner Rosario Braid.
As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand. )
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand. )
The results show 11 votes in favor and 17 against; the proposed amendment
is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I would like to propose an amendment,
by addition, on Section 6, on the second sentence which states:
. . . access to official records and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions. The amendment is to add after
decisions the phrase: AS WELL AS GOVERNMENT RESEARCH DATA USED AS
BASIS FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
FR. BERNAS: The Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment. Will the
Commissioner kindly restate the amendment?
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, Madam President. It is: AS WELL AS GOVERNMENT
RESEARCH DATA USED AS BASIS FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment which
has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is
approved.
I will be very glad to accept any kind of wording as long as it will amount to
absolute recognition of private sector employees, without exception, to
organize.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
FR. BERNAS: Certainly, the sense is very acceptable, but the point raised by
Commissioner Rodrigo is well-taken. Perhaps, we can lengthen this a little bit
more to read: The right of the people WHETHER UNEMPLOYED OR
EMPLOYED BY STATE OR PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS.
I want to avoid also the possibility of having this interpreted as applicable
only to the employed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will the proponent accept an amendment to the
amendment, Madam President?
MR. LERUM: Yes, as long as it will carry the idea that the right of the
employees in the private sector is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The amendment is to insert the phrase INCLUDING
THOSE EMPLOYED IN GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE FIRMS, so the section shall
read: The right of
the people INCLUDING THOSE EMPLOYED IN GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE
FIRMS to form associations, unions . . .
MR. LERUM: I think using the word INCLUDING will improve the provision.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted by Commissioner Lerum?
MR. LERUM: I accept, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Is Commissioner Foz here? Because if I remember right, there
is a provision in the Civil Service to that effect, the right to
self-organization.
MR. FOZ: Yes, there is in the Civil Service.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, I am willing to accept any kind of amendment
as long as the right of the people in the private sector is recognized, because
under two provisions of P.D. No. 442, the Labor Code, this was denied. Unless
we have an express provision in our Constitution, I am afraid we still have
to go to the Supreme Court to declare these provisions of the Labor Code
illegal. I will be very grateful to anyone who changes such provisions.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
decision. We are proposing that the legislature be mandated to fix the period
by law.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): In other words, the Commissioners
amendment covers only those bodies which do not have fixed period within
which to
decide their cases.
MR. GUINGONA: In the Constitution, yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Just a point of information. In the Article on the Judiciary,
there is a provision that the rules of quasi-judicial bodies shall be approved
by the Supreme Court and shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court. So it will be for the Supreme Court to see to it that that
provision regarding the period within which resolutions or decisions shall be
handed down shall be incorporated in the rules of these other quasi-judicial
bodies other than the constitutional commissions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): In other words, the Commissioner is
saying that it is not necessary to put it in the Constitution. Is that the import
of Commissioner Regalados statement?
MR. REGALADO: It is not necessary, Mr. Presiding Officer, because of the
provision in the Article on the Judiciary.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not think all quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies are covered by the provisions contained in the
Constitution.
I am thinking of quasi-judicial and administrative bodies for which the period
for making a decision may not be contained in the Constitution, both those
existing now or those that may be created in the future.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): I think the Commissioners have been
well-enlightened enough as to the rationale of the proposed amendment. Let
us now
vote on this. What does the Committee say before we go to a vote?
FR. BERNAS: Especially in the light of the remark of Commissioner Regalado,
we leave the matter to. the body.
VOTING
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent.
The reason for this is that those are all matters which pertain to procedural
due process.
FR. BERNAS: If there is no objection from any member of the Committee, I
accept it.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Committee has accepted the
amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
Section 17 is transposed as the first sentence or Section 19.
MR. TADEO: Mr. Presiding Officer, anterior amendment on Section 5, page 2,
line 11. Iminumungkahi kong alisin iyong mga salitang nagmumula sa or
upang
maiwasan natin ang walang pakundangang paglabag sa liberty of abode sa
ngalan ng national security at pagsasagawa ng hamletting ng kung sinusino na
lamang. Kapag inalis ito, maisasagawa lamang ang hamletting upon lawful
order of the court. Inuulit ko na alisin natin ang mga salitang nagmumula sa
or
pagkatapos ng court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Puwede po bang basahin ng
Commissioner ang buong probisyon?
MR. TADEO: Ang Section 5 ay nagsasaad ng sumusunod:
The liberty of abode and of changing the same and of travel, within the limits
prescribed by law, shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court.
Iminumungkahi kong alisin iyong or when necessary in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
FR. BERNAS: The Committee would like to hear discussion on this and
preparatory to that, let me read the provision of the 1935 Constitution. This
provision
we have now is a provision of the 1973 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution
simply says:
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by
law shall not be impaired.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Aside from that, this includes the right to travel.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: And there are cases when passports may not be granted or
passports already granted may be canceled. If the amendment is approved,
then
passports may not be canceled unless it is ordered by the court. Is that the
intention? The proponent is really worried about changing of abode when he
mentioned hamletting.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: But another right is involved here and that is to travel.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request a suspension so that we can
separate the liberty of abode and of changing the same from the right to
travel, because they may necessitate different provisions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The session is suspended.
It was 5:45 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:48 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The session is resumed.
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: The proposal is amended to read: The liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits prescribed by law, shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. NEITHER SHALL THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL
BE IMPAIRED EXCEPT IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, PUBLIC
SAFETY, OR PUBLIC
HEALTH AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Committee has accepted the
amendment, as amended.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment, as
amended, is approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I refer to the right to bail on Section 18,
page 3, lines 21 to 24. With the expectation that capital punishment would
be abolished, the Committee deleted the clause except those charged with
capital offense when evidence of guilt is strong. This is the phrase that has
been in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. There is a difference between
capital punishment and capital offense; they are not identical. Of course,
capital
offense as defined in Rule 114, Section 4, of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure reads:
A capital offense, as the term is used in this Rule, is an offense which, under
the law existing at the time of its commission and at the time of the
application to be admitted to bail, may be punished with death.
Assuming that the Congress or the National Assembly will not reinstate
capital punishment, if this clause appearing in the former Constitutions is
likewise
not re-instated, every accused person before conviction will be entitled to
bail, even if he is charged with a capital offense. For example, murder is
punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period, reclusion perpetua
to death; treason, by reclusion temporal, reclusion perpetua to death; and
parricide, by reclusion perpetua to death. So even if death penalty is not
imposed, these and other offenses are considered capital offenses. It is true
that under the Revised Penal Code, the maximum of the prescribed penalty
is death, but the actual penalty imposed by the court, especially if the
mitigating circumstance is attendant, is the minimum period of the penalty.
So in murder, assuming, for example, the qualifying circumstance of
treachery,
the accused may be convicted of murder but the lower penalty is imposed in
its minimum period which is reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
I do not believe the intention of the Committee was to allow all these persons
accused of these capital offenses where the death penalty may be
imposed
but which in many cases is not imposed even by the court because of some
mitigating circumstances before conviction the right to bail. So my
amendment is
to restore that clause so that a person accused of rape, murder, treason,
kidnapping with ransom, robbery, homicide, etc., where the evidence of guilt
is
strong may be denied by the court the right to bail. Of course, it is upon the
prosecution to prove because it has the burden of proof that the evidence of
guilt is strong. I am afraid that if this clause is not reinstated, it would mean
that all persons accused no matter how grave the felony is will be
entitled to bail as a matter of right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
FR. BERNAS: My understanding of the intention of the Committee is that with
the abolition of the death penalty, the category of capital offense disappears.
Also, the intention of the Committee is to make bail by sufficient securities
available to all types of crimes.
MR. PADILLA: I think the inaccuracy, if not error, in that intention of the
Committee is to identify capital offense with capital punishment, which are
not
identical.
FR. BERNAS: But if an offense is no longer punishable by death, it ceases to
be a capital offense.
MR. PADILLA.: That is not correct because a capital offense may be
punishable by death. But even if it is not punishable by death, if the penalty
is
reclusion perpetua or even reclusion temporal in its maximum period, it is
still a capital offense. In other words, capital offense is not synonymous nor
identical with capital punishment.
FR. BERNAS: We submit the matter to a vote by the Commission.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon: Just a matter of clarification. Does the
Chair understand that the interpretation of Commissioner Padilla is that if
this particular provision is approved all offenses are bilabial? Is that correct?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, that is the intention.
maximum period to death. The same way, in treason, the penalty is reclusion
temporal
to death. That is the only problem, otherwise, I would accept the
amendment. But if I. do then I am afraid that some of these accused might
commit the same
offense again especially those contemplated in the proposed amendment to
the amendment for example, a fellow commits murder, then he is released
on bail;
he commits another murder, he is released on bail again, because he might
say My penalty is not reclusion perpetua. It may only be reclusion temporal
or
reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
MR. REGALADO: May I say something?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr Bengzon): Yes, Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: That is the only thing that I am worried about; otherwise, I
would agree with Commissioner Regalado.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Can Commissioner Regalado plug
that loophole?
MR. REGALADO: Actually, as of now, the penalty for murder is reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death. It could be reclusion temporal in its
maximum period, if he has a mitigating circumstance and no aggravating
circumstance; or it could be reclusion perpetua, if he has neither mitigating
nor
aggravating circumstances. But the words used are which may be
punishable by reclusion perpetua.
In other words, that does not rule out a range of penalty, the maximum of
which is reclusion perpetua, as it is now with the amendment. Offenses
which may
be punishable by reclusion perpetua will cover the situation of a range of
penalty. Let us say, Congress later makes a law to comply with the three
periods
in a degree. The penalty for murder will now be reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua. Therefore, a penalty of three periods, with prision mayor
as the
minimum, reclusion temporal as the medium and reclusion perpetua as the
maximum may be provided.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, under the phrase which may be
punishable by reclusion perpetua, I accept the amendment to my
amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: In line with the suggestion of the Chair to plug the
loophole, I was about to suggest to Commissioners Regalado and Padilla, if
we could use
the term impossible penalty of reclusion perpetua.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The suggestion of Commissioner
Regalado covers that contingency which has already been accepted by
Commissioner
Padilla.
MR. PADILLA: The word punishable, I think, would be more accurate than
impossible because when one says punishable, that is the penalty
prescribed by
law; when one says impossible, that is the penalty that may be imposed by
the court, and we usually follow the penalty that is prescribed by law.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Can we hear the comment of the
Committee before recognizing Commissioner Davide?
FR. BERNAS: The Committee would like to accept the amendment, as
amended, by Commissioner Regalado.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: We have just approved the section on the abolition of the death
penalty, but we left it to the National Assembly to reimpose it in certain
cases. What will now happen? If there will be a law which might be enacted
later restoring the death penalty in certain cases, would it be an exception to
this proposed amendment?
FR. BERNAS: My understanding of the amendment is that the penalty at any
rate will be a range which would include reclusion perpetua, so that even if
the
maximum will be death . . .
MR. DAVIDE: So, with the understanding that if, in the event that the National
Assembly will enact a law restoring the death penalty, it is with more
reason that that particular offense to which a penalty of death is imposed
should not be bilabial except when the evidence is not strong.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to suggest that instead of
using reclusion perpetua, because really, heinous crimes which later on
may be
punishable by death will become bilabial, why do we not say EXCEPT THOSE
OFFENSES PUNISHABLE WITH THE HIGHEST PENALTY because then, it would
include
reclusion perpetua, if we do not have death penalty; but if we do have death
penalty, then it will include death penalty. Heinous crimes might be provided
with a single penalty of death, in which case, it will be bilabial because it is
not punishable with reclusion perpetua regardless of what we say here. It
is very clear; there is no need of interpretation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is that acceptable to Commissioners
Regalado and Padilla?
MR. REGALADO: Actually, the words heinous crimes appear in Section 22,
not in the report under consideration but the section with amendment: or
the
death penalty inflicted UNLESS FOR COMPELLING REASONS INVOLVING
HEINOUS CRIMES, THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROVIDES FOR THE DEATH
PENALTY. So, if any amendment
were to be made, it should be here in Section 22.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, but supposing that happens, that provision on bail will be
faulty because then it will make offenses that are punishable by a single
death
penalty bilabial because it is not punishable by reclusion perpetua.
MR. REGALADO: In other words, the Commissioner contemplates a situation
where Congress may eventually restore the death penalty.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. AZCUNA: That is right. So, we should word it such that it will read:
EXCEPT OFFENSES PUNISHABLE WITH THE HIGHEST PENALTY.
will be
on Section 22.
MR. PADILLA: Yes. Precisely, the proposed amendment has something to say
about heinous crimes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Azcuna is not insisting
on that amendment.
MR. PADILLA: I just like to say that in the Revised Penal Code, the crimes are
classified into grave, less grave and light. Maybe we can say most grave
but not heinous. That is not found in the Revised Penal Code.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I think this burden will fall on my committee, the Committee
on Style. And so, I just want to ask: When we say a crime is punishable by
death,
does that not mean that it can be punished also by lower penalties but it can
be punished by death? There is a difference between saying a crime is
punished with death, which means it is only death, and it is punishable by
death, which means it can be punished by death but it can also be punished
by
reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal. Is that not right?
FR. BERNAS: That is my understanding.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MR. AZCUNA: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a comment on that. That is not
necessarily so, Mr. Presiding Officer. In Malaysia, for trafficking in drugs, they
have a single mandatory penalty of death, regardless of mitigating
circumstances. The only penalty is death, if the accused is found guilty. So, it
is
possible that in the future, our National Assembly may adopt that form of
penalty.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): I think we are ready to vote on the
amendment. Can Commissioner Regalado restate the amendment? Or can
Commissioner
Padilla please restate his amendment, as amended by Commissioner
Regalado?
MR. PADILLA: We request Commissioner Regalado to restate his amendment
because he inserted his amendment which I have accepted.
lifted by appeal to the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. So that if any
attempt is made by the government to pass a law saying that persons may
be
detained merely by reason of their political beliefs and aspirations, such a
law would clearly be unconstitutional and a violation of the due process
clause and of Section 9.
So, in my own personal judgment, not necessarily speaking for the
Committee, this matter is adequately covered by our Bill of Rights. And if this
was
violated in the past, it was more because of the circumstances of the past,
and I think the remedies will be adequately provided for also in the
delineation of the scope of the power to impose martial law and the power to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the consequences
thereof.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Would Commissioner Nolledo insist
on his amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I answer only for one minute. I do
not believe that this is covered by due process as I already stated. If we were
to say that it is covered already by the freedom of the press, then I would like
to mention here that the purpose of the provision is preventive in nature.
There are times that because of some political beliefs that one espouses in
peaceful or through lawful means, he is unjustly detained and when one
goes; to
the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus it takes a lot of time for the
Supreme Court to decide even if there is a provision on the period during
which the Supreme Court may decide in order to dispose of the case. And so,
if the Committee does not mind, Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to submit
this to the body for decision, and I will abide.
FR. BERNAS: We submit the matter for decision by the body.
MR. NOLLEDO: The amendment is an addition to the former Section 17 which
now forms part of Section 19, and it reads: No person shall be held to
answer for
a criminal offense without due process of law NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE
DETAINED MERELY BY REASON OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): As many as are in favor of the
amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
FR. BERNAS: As far as the Committee is concerned, I am just debating
whether it should be here or in Section 15.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is for the Committee on Style to decide. So long as
the concept is admitted, I will be satisfied.
FR. BERNAS: As a matter of fact, it is also in the provision on the executive
department.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, the concept is accepted.
FR. BERNAS. Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Subject to style.
FR. BERNAS: Could the Commissioner read his proposed amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: After the period (.) and before the word Excessive, add:
THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE
OF THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
FR. BERNAS: Suppose we say: THE RIGHT TO BAIL.
MR. DE LOS REYES: All right.
FR. BERNAS: The phrase SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED is rather weak.
MR. DE LOS REYES: How about SHALL NOT BE DENIED?
FR. BERNAS: I suggest it will be: SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED EVEN WHEN THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSPENDED.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Could Commissioner Bernas read it
now?
FR. BERNAS: It will read: THE RIGHT TO BAIL SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED EVEN
WHEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSPENDED.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask a question?
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or for offenses inherent in or directly
connected
with invasion.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Yes, Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: That is a recommendation by the Committee on the
Executive to which I have some reservations, particularly on the
proclamation of martial
law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Until such time that
that provision is passed by this body, I think my comments on the
suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus relative to debates are still valid.
FR. BERNAS: I think the comments are valid, yes.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The body will now vote. As many as
are in favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner de los Reyes, as
corrected
by the Committee, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a comment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): May I just announce the results first?
The results show 33 votes in favor and 2 against; the amendment, as
amended, is approved.
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Just a comment, please. What happens if in the suspension
of the writ of habeas corpus a person is arrested without any charge?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: In a situation like that, since the privilege of the writ is not
available and bail is not available either because there is no charge, then
the person has to stay in jail.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA.: Commissioner Rustico de los Reyes is not yet through with his
amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: My amendment is on Section 19.
What is the statement of Commissioner Padilla?
MR. PADILLA: Anterior amendment on Section 15.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Does Commissioner de los Reyes still
have an amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: On Section 19, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): How about Commissioner Padilla?
MR. PADILLA: Section 15.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Padilla is recognized
for an anterior amendment.
MR. PADILLA: In my interpellations on Section 15, I noticed that the phrase
or imminent danger thereof was deleted or eliminated and the explanation
of
the Committee through Commissioner Bernas was that it contemplates only
actual invasion and rebellion. Considering that the power or authority of the
President as Commander-in-Chief in suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus will be limited under the executive department to not more
than 60
days with the concurrence of Congress and then subject to review by the
Supreme Court, will the Committee consider to reinsert the phrase or
imminent
danger thereof, as in the provision on the writ of habeas corpus?
Commissioner Bernas has said that it can be introduced and considered
either by the
Committee or by the body, so that it will read: The privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or
rebellion
OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF when the public safety requires it.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): What does the Committee say?
FR. BERNAS: Let me just say that when the Committee decided to remove
that, it was for the reason that the phrase OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF
could cover
a multitude of sins and could be a source of a tremendous amount of
irresistible temptation. And so, to better protect the liberties of the people,
we
preferred to eliminate that. So, we submit it to the body for a vote.
MR. PADILLA: I would just like to state that the term OR IMMINENT DANGER
THEREOF appears in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions and it has not even
resulted in
a multitude of sins, temptations nor confusion.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Will Commissioner de Castro speak
in favor of the amendment?
MR. DE CASTRO: I am in favor of the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Section 15 speaks of actual rebellion and actual invasion, if
we eliminate OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF. When there is already
actual
invasion or rebellion, the President no longer suspends the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus because we already have actual shooting. There is
nothing more to be remedied by the Chief Executive. But when we put the
words OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF, perhaps they are still assembling;
they are
still preparing for their departure or their provisions for immediate rebellion.
The Chief Executive then has the power to suspend the writ of habeas
corpus, but with the situation I mentioned there is nothing more to suspend.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Floor Leader is recognized.
basis of intelligence reports from the American government there was a war
brewing in Asia and in the Pacific. That is the historical part. The hypothetical
part is: Suppose President Quezon at that time knew that Japanese
transport troops had just left Tokyo or Okinawa for the Philippines for three or
four days travel on an invasion of the Philippines. Let us assume that
there were several thousands of Japanese scattered in the Philippines,
especially in pivotal areas like Manila and Davao, and then his Chief of Staff
proposed that potentially hostile elements within the Philippines ought to be
immobilized in some way or another which could require the suspension of
the
privilege of writ of habeas corpus. In this example, let us say, the Japanese
elements in the Philippines are immobilized, some of whom were
undoubtedly
spies but a good number of whom had become Filipino citizens and who,
therefore, could not be accessible through this form of immobilization except
through
a suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, especially in areas
like Mindanao. One could vary the analogy and change the most populous
nation throughout the North, which in contemporary terms could be a more
likely invader or aggressor and there are so many of their countrymen,
although a
good number have already been naturalized and we were talking about
the dangers of dual allegiance in a previous session will this mean that
where
there is an imminent danger of invasion, the recourse to the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as a means of immobilizing
potential
internal enemies, would be denied to the President of the Philippines?
MR. CONCEPCION: My question is this: Were there many Japanese naturalized
in the Philippines at that time? I do not believe so. I think Commissioner Ople
made a supposition.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. CONCEPCION: Which is not based upon a fact.
MR. OPLE: Yes. I said that in contemporary terms, we could have a repetition
of this from the most populous neighbor that we have. And it is a fact that
about half a million of them are naturalized Filipinos now. Do we wait for the
troops to land before the remedy of a suspension of the privilege of the
writ can be activated by the President of the Philippines?
MR. CONCEPCION: That is why I oppose the liberalization of the naturalization
law. In other words, we speak of the danger, the doors of which I was trying
to close. Now, we open it; who is to blame?
MR. OPLE: That is why I am trying to distribute blame or credit, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is Commissioner Ople proposing or
speaking in favor of the amendment?
MR. OPLE: I wanted to bring out certain possibilities that have a great deal of
plausibility and which pertain to the survival of a country under imminent
danger of invasion.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): The Chair takes it then that he is in
favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Padilla.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Will Commissioner de Castro speak
in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Padilla?
MR. DE CASTRO: Just to strengthen the hypothesis of Commissioner Ople, it
is not a hypothesis. It happened during the last war when we had Japanese
bazaars, hardwares and photographers all over our country. And we know
then that these people were suspected as agents of the Japanese, as in fact
they
were. But the President of the Philippines failed, despite the imminent
danger thereof, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus such
that we
began arresting the Japanese agents only when the Japanese began landing
in the Lingayen Gulf.
So, it was there; it was not used at the time that it was needed. How much
more if it is not there?
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr Bengzon): I believe that the issue has been
amply discussed; the body should be ready to vote.
MR. BROCKA: Mr. Presiding Officer, just one moment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Just one observation. Commissioner
Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: This is in disagreement with what has been said, particularly to
what Commissioner de Castro said; not so much a disagreement, but on the
other
hand, the abuse of the phrase OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF can be
done also like in the past administration. It would be so easy for a President
who wants
to remain in power to stage rebellions and bombings and make it appear that
there is an imminent danger. I just want to bring that up also.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): I think we have discussed the issue
enough.
MR. REGALADO: The Chair recognized me earlier, but I yielded to
Commissioner Concepcion; and I just want to make this point because I am a
little confused.
We seem to be in a reverse situation now. In the 1935 Constitution, the
phrase OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF did not appear in the Bill of Rights.
It was,
however, in the Article on the Executive. Now, in our draft Article, the phrase
was eliminated in the Article on the Executive. But now, we seek to restore
it in the Article on the Bill of Rights which is the exact opposite. We have
already given the reasons why OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF was
eliminated in
the draft Article on the Executive. However, the point that was raised here is
the matter of invasion. The hypothesis is that we would still have to wait
for the invaders to overrun our shores before we can suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus. If I recall my public international law,
especially The Hague Convention on the laws of war, an invasion does not
necessarily require a physical invasion of the shores of a foreign country. The
start of a belligerent act directed towards the objective of invasion is already
actual invasion. It is not to be used in a very literal sense under the
Articles of The Hague Convention. The scenario that was described was that
planes and vessels had already left those foreign countries on the way to
attack
the Philippines; from the moment they left that was already a belligerent act.
That was already the start of the invasion in the country, not the physical
sense of actually overruning the country through force.
MR. PADILLA: May I just say one sentence, Mr. Presiding Officer?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Padilla is recognized
for a final statement on his amendment, considering that that is his
amendment.
MR. PADILLA: It has been said that under the Article on the Executive, the
President has the power to call whenever necessary such Armed Forces to
prevent
or suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection or rebellion. That
provision appears in the 1935 Constitution as well as in the 1973
Constitution. But
despite that power to call on the Armed Forces to suppress lawless violence,
both Constitutions still inserted the following: In case of invasion,
insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety
requires it . . ., and after this the power arises to suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus or to declare martial law.
With regard to the dangers that have been mentioned, of course, the former
regime abused this provision, overabused its power. But with the limitations
now
under the executive department, wherein the duration of martial law is for
only 60 days and still with the concurrence of Congress and with the review
by
the Supreme Court and suspension will not affect the right to bail, the
dangers of abuse are very small compared to the dangers of actual invasion
or
rebellion before the President may declare the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): I think the various distinctions have
been amply explained. The body should be ready to vote by now. Could
Commissioner Padilla restate his amendment?
MR. PADILLA: The amendment is just to insert the omitted phrase OR
IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF after rebellion and before the phrase when
the public safety
requires it.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): As many as are in favor of the
amendment, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 16 votes in favor and 20 against; the amendment is lost.
Mr. Floor Leader, how many more?
MR. RAMA: There is only one more who will present an amendment on two
clarificatory questions from two Commissioners.
other words, one can waive his continued appearance as an accused after he
shall have been arraigned, and he can do this waiver by submitting it in
writing. So, I do not feel there is any necessity to include that as a
constitutional provision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. I am aware that there is such a
provision in the Rules of Court, but there are judges who for one reason or
another, when the accused fails to appear, orders the confiscation of the bail
bond even if the accused has already waived his presence in writing, and
there is nothing in the Rules of Court about that.
MR. COLAYCO: May I answer that?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: The practice in the trial court is that if the presence of the
accused is necessary for his identification, then even if he waives, the court
may still order him to appear.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Correct.
MR. COLAYCO: So, I do not really see that that is necessary. What the court
will require is for him to appear, notwithstanding his waiver if his presence
is necessary so that he can be identified as the accused. As we all know, the
identification of the accused is indispensable.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes. But in trials before the Sandiganbayan, the
Sandiganbayan also makes it of record that the accused is waiving his
identification.
And in that manner, he is allowed to waive his presence provided it is in
writing. So, do I get it from the Committee that it means that the accused
may
wave in writing his presence although this is not stated in this provision? I
just want to place it on record if that is the sense.
MR. COLAYCO: Will the Commissioner please repeat that again?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Is it the sense of the Committee that there is no need for
my amendment because it is understood that the accused can waive in
writing
his presence in court, except for purposes of identification, during the
arraignment and, of course, during the promulgation of judgment?
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): I think we can now vote. As many as
are in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Few
Members
raised their hand. )
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 12 votes in favor and 19 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just ask the Committee one
question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): In connection with what?
MR. TINGSON: With Section 23.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon): Is it just a question?
MR. TINGSON: Just a question. Inasmuch as we will have to explain to the
people when we campaign for ratification of this Constitution, will the
Committee
just please explain to me Section 23 which reads:
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Is that second act not referring to the same offense?
FR. BERNAS: That is a good question, Mr. Presiding Officer. Section 23 speaks
of two kinds of double jeopardy. The first kind is a double prosecution for
the same offense. The second kind of double jeopardy does not require that
the second jeopardy be for the same offense. The second sentence says: If
an
act is punished by a law and an ordinance. An act can be a violation of both
a statute and an ordinance. If by that single act, he committed two offenses,
one against a statute and another against the ordinance, if he has already
been made to answer for either, then he cannot be made to answer for the
other
even if the other is a different offense but arising from the same act.
MR. TINGSON: Now I know what to tell the people of Negros Occidental when
I campaign for the ratification of this Constitution.
R.C.C. NO. 34
Saturday, July 19, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:40 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
Present *
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Aquino
Present *
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present *
Ople
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Padilla
Present
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present *
Bernas
Present
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Present
Brocka
Present *
Reyes de los
Present
Calderon
Present
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Present
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present *
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present *
Guingona
Present
Tan
Present
Jamir
Present
Tingson
Present
Laurel
Absent
Treas
Present
Lerum
Present *
Uka
Present
Maambong
Present
Letter of Mrs. Liceria H. Ona of the Catholic Womens League, San Juan,
Batangas, suggesting measures to improve health care delivery services.
(Communication No. 242 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from the National Council of Churches in the Philippines signed by
Bishop La Verne D. Mercado, enclosing proposals on separation of church and
state, human rights, foreign relations, education, rural issues and land
reform, labor issues, womens and childrens rights, among others.
(Communication No. 243 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Piux W. Amoguia of Baclayon, Bohol, submitting proposals to
help achieve economic recovery.
(Communication No. 244 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Letter from the honorable Commissioner Ponciano L. Bennagen, transmitting
a resolution for a regional autonomous government in the Cordillera,
sponsored by
the Cordillera Peoples Alliance and signed by 4,905 Igorots.
(Communication No. 245 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from P/Lt. Policarpio F. Joson, Navotas Police Station, Metro Manila,
proposing the adoption of general policies regarding the police organization.
(Communication No. 246 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from the Philippine Federation for Environmental Concern signed by
Mr. Delfin J. Ganapin, Jr., supporting Proposed Resolution No. 205 introduced
by
the Honorable Cirilo A. Rigos which seeks to incorporate in the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies provisions recognizing the right to a healthy
environment and providing for the preservation and protection of the
countrys natural resources; and suggesting that similar provisions be
incorporated in
the Articles on the Bill of Rights, National Economy and Patrimony and
General Provisions.
(Communication No. 247 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Manuel C. Pore of the Confederation of Labor and Allied Social
Services, suggesting some provisions on labor and social justice.
(Communication No. 248 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from the honorable Commissioner Ambrosio B. Padilla. attaching a
letter from Mr. Alejandro P. San Pedro regarding the Sabah issue.
(Communication No. 249 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Ahmad P. Musur of Data Street, Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon
City, recommending the federal form of government and the change of name
of the
Republic of the Philippines to the United Federal States of Luzviminda.
(Communication No. 250 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Nicolas B. Montenegro of 126 F. Fule St., Barangay I,
Alaminos, Laguna, suggesting that nationalism be taught from kindergarten
to the
college level.
(Communication No. 251 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. P.S. Caguioa of Quirino, Bacnotan, La Union, expressing
opposition to the abolition of the death penalty.
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 486
(Article on Bill of Rights)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: There was a reservation in yesterdays session to include another
amendment to the Article on the Bill of Rights. The reservation was made by
Commissioner Maambong with the consent of the Committee Chairman or
Vice-Chairman, Commissioner Bernas.
In order to enable us to go into the printing of the Article on the Bill of Rights
for Third Reading, we would like to have this amendment put out of the
way now.
THE PRESIDENT: So, I would like to ask the honorable members of the
Committee on the Bill of Rights to please come forward and join
Commissioner Bernas.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: In line with that reservation made last night and in
consultation with the other proponents. Commissioners Ople, de los Reyes
and Natividad,
we have come up with this provision which we seek to be included as the
second paragraph of Section 22. I would like to state that the concept of this
provision was already conceded as acceptable in principle. What we are
trying to do now is to put it in the proper formulation in order to implement
that
principle.
I will now read the amendment by addition to the second paragraph of
Section 22 of the Bill of Rights. It reads THE EMPLOYMENT OF CORPORAL OR
PSYCHOLOGICAL
PUNISHMENT AGAINST PRISONERS OR PRE-TRIAL DETAINEES, OR THE USE OF
SUBSTANDARD OR OUTMODED PENAL ACTIVITIES CHARACTERIZED BY
DEGRADING SURROUNDINGS,
UNSANITARY OR SUBHUMAN CONDITIONS SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
Foz
Yes
Alonto
Garcia
Yes
Aquino
Yes
Gascon
Azcuna
Guingona
Yes
Yes
Bacani
Yes
Jamir
Bengzon
Yes
Laurel
Bennagen
Yes
Lerum
Yes
Bernas
Yes
Maambong
Yes
Rosario Braid
Yes
Monsod
Yes
Brocka
Yes
Natividad
Calderon
Yes
Nieva
Yes
Castro de
Yes
Nolledo
Yes
Colayco
Yes
Ople
Yes
Concepcion
Yes
Padilla
Davide
Yes
the
right of appeal under the restricted conditions contained there in. I regret
that this was not approved because it would have clarified the very wrong
impression prevailing even among top lawyers in this country who are
practicing law that a judgment of acquittal, under all circumstances, is final,
executory and not appealable.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Quesada
Yes
Reyes de los
Yes
Rama
Yes
Rigos
Yes
Regalado
Yes
Rodrigo
Yes
Tan
Yes
Rosales
Yes
Tingson
Yes
Sarmiento
Treas
Yes
Suarez
Yes
Uka
Sumulong
Yes
Villacorta
Tadeo
Villegas
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those
who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Natividad
Alonto
Sarmiento
Azcuna
Tadeo
Gascon
Villacorta
Laurel
Villegas
Yes
Vice-Chairman
(Sgd.; Jose C. Colayco
Bernardo M. Villegas
except for the last sentence on lines 17 to 19 and except for the change of
the word Batasang Pambansa to LEGISLATURE on line 15, the entire
provision is
exactly the same as that of the 1973 Constitution. The major change,
therefore, is on lines 17 to 19 which states:
In the case of the disabled and the illiterate, the legislature shall design a
mechanism or a system which will not require the assistance of another
person.
These lines are an effort to reconcile conflicting resolutions. Some asked for
the simple retention of the 1973 provision, while others asked for the
disenfranchisement of the illiterate mainly on the ground, I believe, that the
illiterate are used by the literate. So, what lines 17 to 19 do is to ask
the legislature to formulate a procedure so that the illiterate can vote without
the assistance of a second person, and until such system is formulated by
the legislature, the illiterate would not be able to vote. That is all I have to
say on this matter.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I was about to ask that same question
covered by the explanation of Father Bernas on the assumption that we will
have an
election sometime in March or April 1987 in which the illiterate cannot
participate.
FR. BERNAS: That would be the effect.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think about 10 to 15 percent of our people, although not
exactly illiterates in the sense that they cannot completely read and write
are having a hard time writing the names of the candidates. Kung tawagin po
sa amin iyan ay binubuno na ang lapis sa pagsulat. For all practical
purposes
they could be classified as illiterates, although if we will be precise about it,
they are only semi-illiterates. So, I was thinking that perhaps we can
reach a better compromise by stating that while the legislature has not yet
designed a mechanism or a system which will not require the assistance of
another person, these disabled and illiterates who were able to vote during
the previous elections be allowed to vote. Thus, the last sentence will read
something like In the case of the disabled and the illiterate, EXISTING LAWS
SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE UNTIL AFTER the legislature shall have designed a
mechanism or a system which will not require the assistance of another
I recall that during the election in the martial law regime, the opposition have
been complaining about the use of the illiterates to defraud and to cheat
the election. Mr. Marcos was very proud in saying that this is a provision in
the Constitution that was introduced precisely by one of the opposition
leaders in the 1973 Constitution. President Marcos would like to have that
particular provision in the Constitution retained. I believe that we cannot
upgrade the electorate without removing these illiterates in the most
important political exercise. I believe that electing our candidates does not
involve
merely a mechanical act of picking candidates on a ballot. It involves an
intellectual process of knowing the election issues. A voter must know the
record
of the candidate. He must know not only the record of the candidate but
what he stood for during his last term of office or before he got elected. What
were the promises he made during an election campaign? How did he
perform during his term of office? And what kind of alliance or dalliances he
made when
he was in office? What kind of crony was he? Who were his cronies? And
particularly what were the election issues? I believe that illiterates are not
quite
capable of coping with these requirements of a democratic election.
Another thing, Madam President, the illiterates cannot perform the
requirement of a democratic balloting because the first requirement of
democratic voting
is the secrecy of the ballot. As we have seen, illiterates were herded to the
polling places and assisted mostly by the barangay captains who wrote their
votes. This is an infringement of the most fundamental tenet of democratic
voting the secrecy of the ballot. So, there is an inherent flaw in this system
where illiterates are made to vote when they themselves would not be voting
alone; they themselves would not be voting at all; and they themselves
would
not know what their assistors will be writing on the ballots. So, this flaw
opens the floodgates to cheating.
One of the most difficult and, I think, one of the most grievous evils now
upon this country is cheating during election. That is a tremendous problem
that
was evident in the last election when Mrs. Cory Aquino could not win in the
counting and had to be cheated publicly here in this one-time Batasang
Pambansa
hall.
Our job now is to try to close all those loopholes and all those doors to
cheating in the election process. One way of doing it is by not allowing the
illiterates to vote by returning to the old procedure in the 1935
MR. NOLLEDO: Because based on his statements, one can conclude that a
person who does not know how to read and write lacks intelligence. Does the
Gentleman
mean that?
MR. RAMA: There are people who do not know how to read and write that are
intelligent, but they are the exceptions, in the same manner that there are
college professors and college graduates who are also semi-literate in the
sense that they do not know the election issues. They are also the
exceptions.
We are not going by exceptions.
MR. NOLLEDO: I beg to disagree because I think the Filipinos are generally
intelligent people. If given the opportunity and the chance, they will manifest
that intelligence. I understand that there are at least 15 percent of our total
population who are illiterates. That is based on the census many years ago,
and perhaps we can reasonably say that there are now about 20 percent
illiterates in the country that will reach easily 10 million people.
MR. RAMA: No, I beg to disagree. In the July issue of The Daily Express, the
Minister of Education came up with the statistics on illiterates, and she said
that there are 1.2 million illiterates in this country.
MR. NOLLEDO: I have talked to many illiterates in Agusan and Naga City;
they did not know how to read and write, but they have the capacity to
discuss
important issues.
MR. RAMA: They are the exceptions.
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not believe so. I talked to hundreds of them and they
seem to be brighter than people who manifest intelligence. Does the
Gentleman agree
with me if I say that the cheaters are not found among the illiterates; they
are found among the literates? Does the Gentleman agree with me that the
cheaters in previous elections are the literate ones?
MR. RAMA: I do not agree.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: A parliamentary inquiry on the situation because we have no
Floor Leader. We would like some guidance.
I, therefore, ask the Committee whether at the proper time they might
entertain an amendment that will make this exercise of the right to vote
abroad for
Filipino citizens an effective, rather than merely a nominal right under this
proposed Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: Certainly, the Committee will consider that. But more than just
saying that, I would like to make a comment on the meaning of residence
in
the Constitution because I think it is a concept that has been discussed in
various decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly in the case of Faypon vs.
Quirino, a 1954 case which dealt precisely with the meaning of residence in
the Election Law. Allow me to quote:
A citizen may leave the place of his birth to look for greener pastures, as the
saying goes, to improve his lot and that, of course, includes study in
other places, practice of his avocation, reengaging in business. When an
election is to be held, the citizen who left his birthplace to improve his lot
may
decide to return to his native town, to cast his ballot, but for professional or
business reasons, or for any other reason, he may not absent himself from
the place of his professional or business activities.
So, they are here registered as voters as he has the qualifications to be one,
and is not willing to give up or lose the opportunity to choose the
officials who are to run the government especially in national elections.
Despite such registration, the animus revertendi to his home, to his domicile
or
residence of origin has not forsaken him.
This may be the explanation why the registration of a voter in a place other
than his residence of origin has not been deemed sufficient to consider
abandonment or loss of such residence of origin.
In other words, residence in this provision refers to two residence
qualifications: residence in the Philippines and residence in the place
where he
will vote. As far as residence in the Philippines is concerned. the word
residence means domicile, but as far as residence in the place where he
will
actually cast his ballot is concerned, the meaning seems to be different. He
could have a domicile somewhere else and yet he is a resident of a place for
six months and he is allowed to vote there. So that there may be serious
constitutional obstacles to absentee voting unless the vote of the person who
is
absent is a vote which will be considered as cast in the place of his domicile.
in the countryside who did not go to school is, in fact, more respected by
his own more literate brothers and sisters because of the self-abnegation
that he had made in their favor.
Lord Acton said there is no class division deeper than the division in
knowledge. We are speaking here of underprivileged classes. The most
numerous
underclasses in Filipino society are the illiterates. They were denied by their
environment and perhaps by skewed priorities of the government the
opportunity to enjoy some elementary schooling that would make them
literate, and, therefore, rise to the rigorous standard which Commissioner
Rama would
not set before them, which would disqualify them from the right to vote.
And so, at the proper time, Madam President, I hope to propose an
amendment on behalf of the most helpless underclass-most helpless in not
being able to be
heard here the illiterates so that this proposed provision can be
eliminated.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: It is observed that we are mixing the period of interpellations
with the period of debate. I do not mind because their arguments are already
put on the record. May I just request that the Commissioners be conscious of
this matter during the period of amendments.
May we now request that Commissioner Guingona be recognized for
interpellation.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
Madam President, would the Committee be willing to entertain at the
appropriate time a proposal that the right of suffrage of a qualified voter
shall not
be recalled by law on account of his or her failure to vote in previous
elections, plebiscites, initiatives or referenda?
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, the Committee will always entertain
consideration of any proposal, but perhaps it can react so that we would save
time in not
presenting this proposal in case the Committee is not ready at the moment.
Madam President, if the proposal is not found in the report, that would mean
that the initial reaction of the Committee is that it would not be necessary,
but is open to being proven wrong.
Thank you.
MR. GUINGONA: Since Commissioner Ople was allowed to say a few words in
connection with the observations of our Floor Leader, may I also ask, Ma dam
President, that I be allowed a few minutes to react to the statements of
Commissioner Rama.
THE PRESIDENT: As stated by the Floor Leader, the Commissioners are
requested to confine themselves first to the interpellation and then
afterwards we can
have speakers for and against.
MR. GUINGONA: I submit, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I now request that Commissioner
Rodrigo be recognized for interpellation.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I would like to ask my first question.
Am I right in saying that the issue now is not whether or not we should vest
the illiterate and the disabled with the right to vote but whether or not we
should divest the illiterate and the disabled said right which they already
have?
FR. BERNAS: That is the issue.
MR. RODRIGO: And if this proposed resolution is passed and then approved
by the people in the plebiscite, the last paragraph will take effect, to mean:
Until the legislature shall have enacted a law providing for a mechanism or a
system by which the disabled and illiterate can vote without requiring the
assistance of another person, the illiterates and the disabled will not be
allowed to vote.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, but this does not exclude them from voting in the
plebiscite.
MR. RODRIGO: Precisely. So, when they vote in the plebiscite, they know that
if they vote yes for the Constitution, they are practically disenfranchising
themselves and depriving themselves of their right to vote.
FR. BERNAS: In effect, they would, yes.
MR. RODRIGO: There are more than a million illiterate voters and they have
relatives and friends. Are we not jeopardizing the approval of the whole
Constitution by incorporating this very controversial provision in the
Constitution?
FR. BERNAS: I think the honorable Commissioner makes a very good point
there, that is why, as I said, these particular three lines are put in there more
as
subject for discussion and certainly this can be modified, for instance, by
commanding the COMELEC to formulate something better than what we
have today.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
I just wanted to emphasize that we might be jeopardizing the whole
Constitution by incorporating this controversial provision.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
May I now request Commissioner Monsod to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I will abide by the rules and not present my
arguments for and against the position of Commissioner Rama, but I would
like
very much to reserve the right to do so at the proper time.
I just wanted to ask the Committee, in the case of lines 18 and 19, whether
the Committee equates the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot to the
nonassistance of another person. Line 19 says: a system which will not
require the assistance of another person. Are we saying here that the
secrecy of
the ballot is not inviolate as long as another person knows about the vote of
the illiterate at the time that he is voting? That seems to be the
assumption.
FR. BERNAS: I am not too sure I understood the question.
MR. MONSOD: Let me go back. The Committee, I assume, knows that under
these are provisions in the present Election Code pursuant to the provision in
the
Constitution on the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: The present Election Code provides for a system of assistance
to illiterates.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: And this provision in the present Election Code has not been
declared unconstitutional, and as far as I know, has not been questioned on
constitutionality as being violative of the provision of the Constitution on
secrecy and sanctity of the ballot.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Are we saying now that the procedures present in the
Omnibus Election Code of 1986 are unconstitutional, if this provision is
approved?
FR. BERNAS: As the proposed three lines are worded, they would nullify the
existing provisions of the Election Code.
MR. MONSOD: And that, therefore, we are making the assumption that
assistance violates secrecy.
FR. BERNAS: Assistance is a major source of corrupting the electoral process.
MR. MONSOD: Under the 1986 Election Code, which the Gentleman probably
knows, there have been improvements and refinements in the assistance
provision, and
Commissioner Rama was referring to abuses of barangay captains in the
voting of illiterates. We are aware that under the 1986 Election Code, the
barangay
captains are no longer allowed to assist illiterates.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: We are also aware that under the 1986 Election Code, the
assistance that was allowed unqualifiedly in the 1984 Code has been limited
by the
provision that anybody assisting can only assist three persons.
FR. BERNAS: If we want the illiterate to vote in the first elections under the
new Constitution and if we say the law governing the voting of the
illiterate must be passed by the legislature, then necessarily we would need
a transitory provision.
But if we amend this to say that the rules for the illiterate can be
promulgated by the COMELEC, then a transitory provision may not be
necessary because
the COMELEC can do it right away. In fact, we could ask from the President
an executive order authorizing the COMELEC to design a new way for the
illiterate for purposes of the first election.
MR. SUAREZ: Can we leave that job, filling up that constitutional gap, to the
Commissioners wisdom to determine?
FR. BERNAS: To the collective wisdom of the Commission, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let me go to the first sentence in Section 1. The Commissioner was saying a
while ago that this was practically lifted from the 1935 and the 1973
constitutional provisions on the right of suffrage.
FR. BERNAS: From the 1973 provisions, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: But as distinguished, the 1973 Constitution represented a
dramatic change which completely revolutionized the matter of exercise of
suffrage.
The complexion of this exercise was changed dramatically, if I may say so. In
the 1935 Constitution, the word may was employed; in the 1973
Constitution,
the directory word may was changed to shall, making it mandatory in
character. Now we are reemploying the use of the term shall under the
draft
proposal. Is the proponent conveying the thought to us that he would want
the right of suffrage to be exercised mandatorily by the free citizens of our
country?
FR. BERNAS: That is not my intention, Madam President. As a matter of fact,
in my understanding of the 1973 Constitution, the obligation to vote does not
arise simply from the word shall in Article VI on Suffrage, but rather comes
from the Article on Duties and Obligations of Citizens. Apparently, the 1971
Constitutional Convention felt that by itself, the word shall here does not
connote obligation so that. therefore, it became necessary for them to add
that other provision. And, if the Gentleman would ask my personal opinion
about the obligation to vote, I would rather not have it.
MR. SUAREZ: So, aside from the conveyance of the meaning, that the word
shall is only directory in character as far as Section 1, Article on Suffrage,
is
concerned, the word shall, if mandatory in character, applies only to the
exercise of the right of suffrage by a citizen.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, it is directory as far as the citizen is concerned, it is
mandatory as far as the State is concerned, in the sense that the State may
not
prevent any of these from voting.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I request that Commissioner Nieva be
recognized for interpellation.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nieva is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Does the Commissioner have a question?
MS. NIEVA: No, this is just in support of the Nolledo amendment; it is not an
interpellation.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
The last interpellator, Madam President, is Commissioner Bacani.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: My questions were asked by Commissioner Suarez already,
so I have gotten the clarification I wanted.
Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, there are no more interpellators. Before we
move into the period of debate, I move that the period of interpellations be
terminated and that we proceed to the period of debate.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we close the period of
interpellations?
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, just a few closing remarks, perhaps, from the
sponsor.
any other Commissioner who would wish to speak in favor of the position of
Commissioner Rama, so that he could take the podium after Commissioner
Rama.
As it is now, there are already five who have registered to speak against the
position of Commissioner Rama.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama is recognized to continue his speech.
MR. RAMA: Thank you, Madam President.
It is really very easy to go into such romantic arguments that illiterates are
also educated and intelligent. But the large fact of life here in this
country, Madam President. is that the illiterate belong to that segment of the
population that is ignorant. We know that there are ignorant people in the
country and that they make up a large segment. And among those ignorant
people are the illiterates; many of the ignorant can read and write and the
most
ignorant of them cannot read and write. Now, in the business of election, I
think we should not make the ignorant cancel out the votes of the thinking
and
the informed voter. They are unfortunate; therefore, we should not add to
their misfortune. That is neither here nor there, Madam President, because
we are
talking about a very vital function of electing and choosing the leaders of the
country. This function will determine not only the quality of leaders we
are going to have but also the future of this country.
As a matter of fact, Madam President, I made a study of other countries that
are most successful. They are also compassionate, like I am compassionate. I
know that we should be compassionate to these unfortunate illiterates. But
that is a misplaced compassion. Other countries more advanced than ours do
not
precisely allow the illiterates to vote and to inflict their misfortune on the
country. Like, for instance, New York, USA. New York does not allow the
illiterates to vote for the simple reason that they are going to cause an
aberration to democracy. We must distinguish the; function of a voter. Let us
put
misfortune in its proper place. Let us have them educated; let us make all
efforts to educate them, but do not bring them into the system of our
election.
All European countries, Madam President, require that their voting must be
secret direct, secret. That means no assistor, for that will open the
electoral process to cheating. Our business here is to try to close, not to
open, our election system to cheating. In the communist countries, all the
illiterates are allowed to vote and I think that is significant. Mr. Marcos
wanted the illiterate to vote. In all communist countries, the illiterates can
vote. That is why they have a grotesque election process. That is why
dictators, who are insane, become leaders of the country. Brazil does not
allow the
illiterates to vote; Chile does not allow the illiterates to vote. In Peru and
Ecuador, the people have studied and have made a survey and they are also
compassionate, but they would not try to mess up their election system with
a misplaced sense of compassion. Japan has no constitution, but has no
disqualification against the illiterate for the simple reason that they are 99
percent literate. The only other countries that celebrate this so-called
doctrine of compassion for the unfortunate are Indonesia and India. Do we
want the Philippines to be in the same league and in the same category as
Indonesia and India? India allows the illiterate to vote because, I think, the
majority of her people are illiterate. But the Philippines is one of the
countries that have the highest literacy rate, because before the war, the
1935 Constitution did forbid people to vote if they could not read and write
so
that everybody strove to know how to read and write to be able to vote. I
think we should disabuse ourselves with the romantic argument that the
illiterate
are intelligent, that they are more intelligent than the literate. This deserves
scant consideration.
We know very well that in this country, the rascal politicians win their
elections in benighted regions where there are no or few schools and people
are
misinformed. The rascals and the warlords cannot win in urbanized cities
because people are educated and well-informed. So that if we go over the
political
history of this country, we will find out that the best senatorial candidates
had difficulty winning in the areas where there are many illiterate; in the
areas where the schools are very few, but they do not have difficulty winning
in places where people are informed. With respect to the point that the
so-called radio as the main medium of information is helpful to the illiterate,
the point is that one has to be civilized and educated to be able to
understand, analyze, collate the issues and propaganda disseminated over
the radio and comment on them. That is why Mr. Marcos was very successful
because
he controlled the media and the illiterate could not distinguish propaganda
from truth. So for a person to understand and know the election issues, he
must
have some kind of education. This is the reason Jose Rizal said that
education of the people is the salvation of this country. He did not subscribe
to the
theory that the illiterate are innately intelligent. What did he mean by
education? One must at least go to school and know how to read and write.
Therefore, a person who does not know how to read and write is completely
uneducated because the most basic element of education is knowing how to
read and
write. As Jose Rizal said, we should be educated because that is the only
salvation of our country. If we have to depend on the illiterate to vote and
select our leaders now, God help us! Another argument, Madam President, is
that we have to learn from the past experience not to be doomed by history.
We
know that the past election was debauched by cheating. The COMELEC
Chairman, Ramon Felipe himself, came to this Commission to tell us to
please take out
that provision in the Constitution which allows the illiterate to vote because
that is one of the main forms of debauchery of the election process. Are we
going to ignore that? Of course, we have also the NAMFREL, but I believe the
COMELEC Chairman is a very decent man who knows whereof he speaks and
yet he
asked the Commission to eliminate that provision because it is a source of
cheating. Our democracy cannot survive if our election process is vulnerable
to
cheating. Even Thomas Jefferson himself who is the genius of the republican
type of government had to revise his definition of democracy. In his later
years, he wrote George Washington, and I quote: Yes. we must have a
democracy of, for and by the people with a certain degree of instruction. He
realized
that a government run by ignorant people for ignorant people and of
ignorant people will not long survive. This means we must have education.
Thank you.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, isang minuto lang po.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Is there anyone who wants to speak in favor of the position of
Commissioner Rama? Nobody has registered with me, and one more is
allowed under
the Rules to speak in favor of the position taken by Commissioner Rama.
MR. UKA: Madam President.
MR. TADEO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recognize Commissioner Tadeo later.
Is it in favor of or against the position of Commissioner Rama?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for a few minutes.
In the meantime, I ask the Commissioners who wish to speak to please
register with the Acting Floor Leader so as to have an orderly discussion.
It was 11:24 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:27 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
RECONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL
ON THIRD READING OF ARTICLE
ON THE JUDICIARY
MR. BENGZON: Before we resume our discussion on the Article on Suffrage, I
move that we reconsider the approval on Third Reading of the Article on the
Judiciary to afford those Members who were not able to cast their votes to do
so.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will call the roll of Members who were not able to cast
their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Yes
Lerum
Alonto
Yes
Natividad
Azcuna
Yes
Sarmiento
Yes
Brocka
Tadeo
Yes
Gascon
Villacorta
Laurel
Villegas
OF COMMISSIONER PADILLA
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I am in favor of the requirement in the 1935
Constitution which states and able to read and write, which was deleted in
the
1973 Constitution. While there are valuable Members in this Commission who
were members of the 1971 Constitutional Convention, my position is that,
oftentimes, the 1935 Constitution provision is better than that of the 1973
Constitution, and that the 1973 Constitution is not always an improvement
over
the 1935 Constitution.
Madam President, we have the reputation that the Philippines is a literate
country and that the Filipinos are highly literate.
During the Spanish regime, while we had the benefit of the Christian faith,
there was no real effort on the part of colonial Spain to fully educate the
Filipinos, because it is said that it is easier to rule and govern a nation when
the people remain more ignorant than educated. Whatever be our reactions
to the American rules one benefit was the widespread education of our
people. Many American teachers devoted their time and effort in their
sacrifice to
uplift the educational standards of the Philippines. And we have always been
giving the biggest share of our national budget to education. However,
during
the dictatorial regime of Mr. Marcos, the budgetary allotment for education
was reduced, and the biggest allotment went to the military, the Armed
Forces
of the Philippines, which, in my opinion, was a big mistake. But the dictator
had his own designs to make the military powerful so that he could utilize
the military strength to support his dictatorship.
Madam President, if we delete the qualification of the 1935 Constitution on
literacy and continue the 1973 Constitution on illiteracy, I am alarmed that
the number of illiterate now will keep on increasing. Even the 1.2 million
Filipinos who are illiterate among the electorate is alarming. If we continue
qualifying the illiterate to vote, we may be fomenting illiteracy; whereas, if
we return to the 1935 Constitution provision and require the voters to be
literate, to be able to read and write, it will be an incentive for our people.
It is said that an illiterate is underprivileged, that his being an illiterate is not
by his own choice or fault. Madam President, we pride ourselves in
having a system of education. We are given at least free elementary
education where we definitely learn how to read and write, which is one of
the most
elementary acquisitions in the ladder of education.
Assuming there are some who are still illiterate, I believe there is an existing
movement for adult education, to teach even those who are already beyond
the school age. Even the parents of our schoolchildren may be given the
basic instructions to be able to read and write. We should have instances
wherein
the young children go to public schools and get the elementary rudiments, at
least, the ability to read and write. And if the parents have not had that
chance during the many years of martial misrule, they still have the
opportunity to acquire this rudimentary and fundamental requisite of the
ability to
read and write.
Madam President, I understand and I agree that there are many illiterates
who are intelligent. In fact, I would even go further. There are some illiterates
who are more intelligent than the many literates. But it does not mean that
we should perpetuate this status of illiteracy, much less encourage and
foment
illiteracy. We should take every step to uplift the education of our people and
grant them, at least, this basic essential of citizenship and the right to
vote, based on this minimum qualification of the ability to read and write.
In that regard, Madam President, I do not want to disenfranchise the
illiterate, or the disabled, or even the blind. They are citizens and they should
have
the right to vote, but they should be able to read and write to exercise this
right of suffrage without the assistance of other persons. Otherwise, the
present situation which has been the object of grave abuses in our electoral
process will unfortunately continue and even increase because
unfortunately,
the persons authorized to write the ballots for the illiterate oftentimes do not
follow the choice of the so-called illiterate. And the illiterate are in
no position to check or verify whether their so-called representatives follow
their votes because they cannot read what the representatives have written
on
their ballots.
So, Madam President, while I sympathize with some people who are illiterate.
I fully support the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rama because we
should
not encourage illiteracy; on the contrary, we should reduce illiteracy by all
means by including adult education.
Thank you very much.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
voters? He talked about the abuse by the radio, by the barangay captains, by
government officials and perhaps by the COMELEC. But the presence of
abuses is
not a ground for denying the illiterate to vote because during the 14 years of
Mr. Marcos misrule the system of abuse and fraud was perfected. We do not
throw out the baby with the bath. As a matter of fact, NAMFREL would like to
share with this Commission the finding that there is no correlation between
illiteracy and abusive elections. In fact, one of the most abusive election
areas was Makati where there was a failure of elections. On the other hand,
there were areas where the elections were considered tolerable and the
results credible, for instance, Eastern Samar. People would say that the level
of
literacy in Makati is probably higher than that in Samar. In all of Metro
Manila, our finding is that there is only one city where elections could be
considered tolerable. Yet in the provinces like Benguet, Batanes, Southern
Leyte, Eastern Samar and Zamboanga, elections were considered tolerable
and the
results credible, even Nueva Vizcaya whose elections were tolerable in 1986.
So, Madam President, we believe that there is no correlation between an
abusive process and illiteracy. If the process was abused, it was because
there was a conspiracy of the highest level to subvert the 1984 and 1986
elections. I also would like to make a distinction between the mechanism and
the principle of excluding. I believe Commissioner Rama is for the principle
of excluding; whereas, the proposed Article is for a mechanism and,
therefore, does not make an assumption as to the education level and so on.
As to the
argument that denying the illiterate the right to vote is an incentive to
improve the educational system, to me, that is a non sequitur. The right of
the
people to education is a matter of social justice and a matter of right.
Whether or not we deny the illiterate the right to vote, that right to education
is there. And I believe that in this Constitution we are framing that mandate
quite strongly, and the fact that we deny the illiterate the right to vote
will not matter as far as mandating the education of the illiterate is
concerned. The last point is that the government we want to elect should be
responsible, competent people, and the assumption is that the illiterate are
not capable of contributing to that end. I think the history of the world
shows that people who do not read or write somehow manage or are very
capable of choosing their leaders. As a matter of fact. our experience in
NAMFREL
when we went all over the country to see the issues very clearly, they were
undisturbed by the distortions of the media and manipulations by people.
And
there is no correlation between their ability to choose their leaders and their
ability to read and write.
What I want to say has been anticipated by the two previous speakers, and I
do not wish to belabor the point. I just want to add that as an anthropologist
and a social scientist, I have been exposed to the worst social situations in
this country such as those found all the way from the Cordillera to Sierra
Madre and to uplands of Mindanao, including the squatters of Metro Manila,
as well as peasants both in Mindanao and Luzon. And I can say that I have
learned a lot from people in those areas in terms of what it means to be
intelligent. There certainly is no relationship between illiteracy and the
capability to make sound moral and intellectual judgment.
As to the argument that disenfranchisement is a motivation for learning, I am
convinced that the motivation is not lacking in all of these areas; rather it
is the inability of the State to meet this motivation for learning.
I am for enfranchising the illiterate.
Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you, Commissioner Bennagen.
Madam President, I request that Commissioner Tadeo be recognized for a
short remark.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER TADEO
MR. TADEO: Madam President, sinisikap kong makilahok sa interpellation
dahil alam kong ang pinakamahalaga rito ay ang idea in motion. Naniniwala
akong sa
mga illiterate, pinakamarami rito ay mga magbubukid. Bakit ba sila naging
illiterate? Sa kadahilanang bunga ito ng kahirapan, naging biktima sila ng
isang
sistema na sa murang edad, kahit na libre ang elementarya, hindi nila
makuhang mag-aral dahil kinakailangan ang survival. Sa murang edad,
nagtitinda na
sila ng ice candy, katulong na sila ng kanilang mga magulang sa bukid. Sila
ay biktima ng isang mala-kolonyal at malapiyudal na sistema, pagkatapos
parurusahan pa natin sila sa pamamagitan ng hindi nila pagboto?
Napakalaking insulto at napakalaking kawalang-katarungan nito sa mga
magbubukid na bahagi
ng pag-unlad ng bansang ito.
Tungkol sa sinasabing edukasyon, ang edukasyon ba ay natatapos sa apat na
sulok ng ating kuwarto? Ang mga illiterate ay nasa larangan ng buhay kung
saan
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Acting Floor
Leader that we close the period of sponsorship and debate? (Silence) The
Chair
hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. BENGZON: I move that we proceed to the period of amendments,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we proceed to the period of
amendments?
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 486
(Article on the Bill of Rights)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, before we proceed to the period of
amendments, may I go back to where we left off earlier this morning with
respect to that
particular section in the Bill of Rights. I believe that Commissioners
Maambong and Bernas are now ready to consider that section in the Bill of
Rights.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The body will continue the consideration of Section 22 of the Bill of Rights
which reads:
The employment of corporal or psychological punishment against prisoners
or pretrial detainees, or the use of substandard or outmoded penal facilities
characterized by degrading surroundings, unsanitary or subhuman conditions
should be dealt with in accordance with law.
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I just would like to indicate the generous
response of the Members of the Commission to this proposed amendment,
notably
Commissioners Romulo, Suarez, Davide, Rigos and others who offered
beautiful suggestions to implement the concept.
FR. BERNAS: As I said in the beginning, as the Bill of Rights is now shaping
up, we have two kinds of rights rights which are self-implementing and
rights which need implementation. The rights which are self- implementing
are generally worded in the way Commissioner Suarez would have it. But this
particular right which we are putting in here is something which needs
implementation. So, actually, the effective provision here would be should
be dealt
with BY LAW because we are still dependent on law.
MR. SUAREZ: May I add that my proposal is to make two sentences out of
this proposed provision. So put a period (.) after detainees and continue
the next
sentence: The use of inadequate . . .
FR. BERNAS: How would it read now?
MR. SUAREZ: It would read something like this: NO PHYSICAL OR MENTAL
PUNISHMENT SHALL BE EMPLOYED against CONVICTED prisoners or pretrial
detainees. The
use of INADEQUATE penal facilities UNDER subhuman conditions should be
dealt with BY LAW.
FR. BERNAS: I think the proposed amendment of Commissioner Maambong,
when it speaks of should be dealt with BY LAW, has reference not just to
inadequate
or substandard conditions, but even also to torture.
MR. MAAMBONG: I confirm that, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. So, it does modify the sense of Commissioner Maambongs
proposal. I would leave it to Commissioner Maambong to say whether he
accepts that
or not.
MR. MAAMBONG: Actually, I am amenable to the use of the words NO
PHYSICAL or psychological. . . But I really have a difficulty in separating the
two
things with the words should be dealt with BY LAW and I would rather
agree with the Committee on this point.
FR. BERNAS: At any rate, what Commissioner Suarez wants to be emphasized
is already covered by other provisions.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: This is more of a command to the State saying that beyond
having recognized these things as prohibited, the State should do something
to remedy
whatever may be a violation.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. But I would just like to indicate, even though I cannot
accept the amendment, that the wording of Commissioner Suarez would
indeed be
more emphatic and it would have served my purpose better if it would not
destroy the essence of the whole provision.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Will the sponsor entertain an amendment to his
amendment?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. .
THE PRESIDENT: We are still on the amendment of Commissioner Suarez.
MR. REGALADO: No. I will address it instead to Commissioner Maambong.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I think Commissioner Suarez is not going to
insist on his amendment. So, may we allow him to withdraw?
MR. SUAREZ: Inasmuch as the word corporal has already been substituted
with the word PHYSICAL, as stated by the honorable proponent. I will not
insist on
my amendment to the amendment because the sense is already very well
conveyed.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado desires to be recognized in relation
to the proposed amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President, but I would just like to make a
statement. Considering that Commissioner Suarez mentioned PHYSICAL I
did say
corporal to save time, I would rather ask the Committee to allow me to
change corporal to PHYSICAL; then, I will accept that amendment on the
word
PHYSICAL by Commissioner Suarez.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, I am proposing a further amendment to
put some standards on this, to read: The employment of PHYSICAL,
psychological OR
DEGRADING punishment ON ANY PRISONER.
Please permit me to explain. The punishment may not be physical but it
could be degrading. Perhaps, the Members have seen the picture of that girl
who was
made to parade around the Manila International Airport with a placard slung
on her neck, reading I am a thief.
That is a degrading form of punishment. It may not necessarily be corporal
nor physical. That is why I ask for the inclusion of OR DEGRADING
punishment
on this line and employment should be ON ANY PRISONER. It includes a
convicted prisoner or a detention prisoner.
MR. MAAMBONG: Where would the words be?
MR. REGALADO: The employment of PHYSICAL, psychological OR
DEGRADING punishment ON ANY PRISONER. This is all-inclusive.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, the Commissioner seeks to delete the
words against CONVICTED prisoners or pretrial detainees, and in its place
would be ON
ANY PRISONER.
MR. REGALADO: Because in penal law, there are two kinds of prisoners: the
prisoners convicted by final judgment and those who are detention prisoners.
Delete or pretrial detainees; then, or the use of GROSSLY substandard or
INADEQUATE penal facilities. If we just say substandard, we have no basis
to
determine against what standard it should be considered. But if we say
GROSSLY substandard, that is enough of a legislative indication and
guideline.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, before we take it up one by one, the
Committee modification actually deleted the words substandard or
outmoded, and in its
place, we put the word INADEQUATE. Is it the Gentlemans position that we
should put back the word substandard instead of INADEQUATE?
MR. FOZ: May I just ask one question of the proponent of the amendment. I
get it that the law shall provide penalties for the conditions described by his
amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: In line with the decisions of the Supreme Court on the
interpretation of cruel and unusual punishments, there may be a law which
punishes
this violation precisely or there may not be a law. What could happen is that
the law could provide for some reliefs other than penalties.
In the United States, there are what is known as injunctive or declaratory
reliefs and that is not exactly in the form of a penalty. But I am not saying
that the legislature is prevented from passing a law which will inflict
punishment for violations of this section.
MR. FOZ: In case the law passed by the legislature would impose sanctions,
not so much in the case of the first part of the amendment but in the case of
the second part with regard to substandard or outmoded legal penal facilities
characterized by degrading surroundings and insanitary or subhuman
conditions, on whom should such sanctions be applied?
MR. MAAMBONG: It would have to be applied on the administrators of that
penal institution. In the United States, in my reading of the cases furnished
to me
by Commissioner Natividad, there are instances where the law or the courts
themselves ordered the closure of a penal institution and, in extreme cases,
in
some states, they even set the prisoners free for violations of such a
provision.
MR. FOZ: I am concerned about the features de- scribed as substandard or
outmoded penal facilities characterized by degrading surroundings, because
we know
very well the conditions in our jails, particularly in the local jails. It is not
really the fault of those in charge of the jails but these conditions are
the result of lack of funds and the support by local government, in the first
instance, and by the national government.
Does the Gentleman think we should penalize the jailers for outmoded penal
facilities?
MR. MAAMBONG: No, Madam President. What we are trying to say is that lack
of funds is a very convenient alibi for the State, and I think with these
provisions, the State should do something about it.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, we are not telling the legislature what to do:
we are just telling them that they should do something about it.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
The provision which says: The employment of PHYSICAL, psychological OR
DEGRADING PUNISHMENT against ANY PRISONER OR DETAINEE SHALL be
dealt with BY LAW
is already provided for by our present laws. We already have laws against
third-degree punishments or even psychological punishments. Do we still
need this
provision?
Thank you. Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: As I was saying, Madam President, the law need not
penalize; the law may only put in corrective measures as a remedy.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: May I just rejoin the statement of Commissioner de Castro
that we have laws already covering situations like this. The law we have on
that in
the Revised Penal Code is maltreatment of prisoners which comes from the
original text maltratos de los encarcerados. That presupposes that the
prisoner is
incarcerated.
The proposed legislation sought here will apply not only to incarcerated
prisoners, but also to other detainees who, although not incarcerated, are
nevertheless kept, their liberty of movement is controlled before
incarceration. So, this is for the legislature to fill that void in the law.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona seeks to be recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
because of their misfortune. That is not the point. The point is that the
illiterate should not be allowed to vote because they cannot function as
voters under a democratic rule of voting. They cannot know the election
issues,
the records of each candidate comparing them with the rest, the
performances of these candidates. Therefore, they are not in a position to
elect the best
men as public officials and leaders of this country.
Second, we have had our experience with these illiterates. We have seen
how they were utilized in the past election. I am against the voting of the
illiterate because they are vulnerable to manipulation by the politicians.
Precisely, I do not want the illiterate to be further exploited by the
politicians. That has happened. They have already been exploited enough by
many people and we allow these politicians and war-lords to exploit them
further
during elections. We have seen that this provision allowing the illiterate to
vote makes our electoral process vulnerable to cheating. That is the main
problem we have in this country. We should try our best to try to close the
door to and minimize this cheating as much as possible.
This Constitutional Commission whose Members have sworn not to run in the
next election or in the next 6 or 12 years anyhow are in the best position to
pass this kind of amendment disauthorizing the illiterate to vote. No other
body in this country, neither a Congress nor a Constitutional convention,
would
have the opportunity and courage as this Constitutional Commission to
approve that kind of a provision in the Constitution because it will take some
kind
of moral courage to present a provision disqualifying 1.2 million voters.
So, for that reason, Madam President, I appeal to the Commission to at least
look at this issue under the cold light of reason, not using the arguments
that are either patriotic or romantic or compassionate.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, Commissioner Concepcion wants to say a
few words on the matter before we go to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you, Madam President.
I do not propose to speak in favor or against any of the proposals, but I would
like to transmit what happened in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
when the question of suffrage was taken up.
One significant feature of the exchange of ideas in the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines was that some of the experienced politicians there were strongly
in favor of the removal of the provision of the 1973 Constitution insofar as
illiteracy is concerned. Their main reason was that during the last
presidential elections. most of the irregularities were committed through
illiterate voters. We discussed the propriety or popularity of a measure that
would eliminate illiteracy as a disqualification to vote but they said that the
illiterates have never exercised the right of suffrage even under the 1973
Constitution. The reason is they never knew; they never filled their own
ballots; and they never knew what their ego had written on their ballots.
During
the last presidential elections the vote-buying by agents of the
administration was rampant that they even caused many people to register
as illiterate and
sell their votes by receiving half of the amount agreed upon and choosing
the buyer to fill the corresponding ballot. After the same had been cast, the
balance of the price was delivered to the illiterate voter.
Madam President, the draft provision submitted by the Committee has tried
to offset that problem by adding a last sentence which would require
Congress to
design means to ensure voting by an illiterate without the intervention of
another person.
I note, however. that the last sentence is preceded by another sentence
appearing in the 1973 Constitution directing Congress to take measures to
insure
the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot. This, notwithstanding, that secrecy has
not really been protected by Congress inasmuch as the Election Code
authorizes the illiterate to vote through another who fills the ballot of such
illiterate.
Undoubtedly, there are other means by which the illiterate may vote without
the intervention of another person. The illiterate are entitled to participate
in the operation of every democratic society. Their voice should be heard in a
democratic society. In fact. I believe it is their duty to express their
views and cast their votes on matters of public concern. I share the
conviction that every citizen is under moral and legal obligation to be fairly
informed on matters of public concern and should contribute to the formation
and development of an enlightened and sound opinion on such matters.
Every registered voter has the duty to cast his vote. A provision to this effect
in the 1973 Constitution was introduced in response to a paper prepared on
the occasion of the centenary of Gregorio Araneta, wherein it was pointed
out that the people had not only the right but also the duty to participate in
the government of a democratic community; that every power carries with it
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Madam President. On line 8 of Section 1, after the
word are, I propose to add the words AT LEAST. Then on line 9, delete the
words
or over, so that the sentence will read: Suffrage shall be exercised by all
citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are AT
LEAST eighteen years of age . . .
FR. BERNAS: The Committee accepts.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. Madam President, I propose to delete lines 17 to 19 of
Section I beginning with the word In and ending with the word person.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Monsod explain his proposed
amendment?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I think the arguments for and against this
provision have already been amply discussed here. I just want to say that as
far as
the mechanisms and the procedures are concerned, they are amply covered
by the mandate of the legislature to provide for a system of securing the
secrecy
and sanctity of the ballot. Thus, lines 17 to 19 would really deprive the
illiterate of the right to vote, until the legislature shall have designed these
means. We believe that the illiterate should be allowed to vote, and that
there are many mechanisms and methods by which the secrecy and sanctity
of the
ballot may be protected.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted by the Committee?
FR. BERNAS: I leave the matter to the body because I think there are others
who prefer to keep or modify this provision.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: This is just for the information of the body. If the body
approves the amendment by deletion proposed by Commissioner Monsod,
there will be
other Commissioners who will propose amendments in place thereof.
Commissioner Aquino has an amendment which will take the place of this
particular
paragraph. So, perhaps, we could dispose of Commissioner Monsods
amendment first.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us hear the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Aquino.
MS. AQUINO: My proposed amendment would be an amplification of lines 17
to 19 which, when approved, should be transposed to the Article on
Transitory
Provisions. Hence, I would oppose the motion to delete lines 17 to 19.
THE PRESIDENT: How would the paragraph read?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I propose that we address first the
amendment by deletion of Commissioner Monsod.
MR. BENGZON: That is why I am proposing that we first vote on the
amendment of Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote first on the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Monsod.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I would like to speak against that amendment.
MR. BENGZON: Commissioner Rama wishes to speak against the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, many of our Members here voted in favor or
against my amendment because there is a similar provision on lines 17 to
19. So, it
would be a little unfair to those people who voted against disenfranchising
the illiterate in view of this method provided for on lines 17 to 19. Another
reason is that it has been the largest fact of life here that the manner of
voting by the illiterate through an assistor is one of the main sources of
cheating. It also violates the first requirement of a democratic voting which is
secrecy of the ballot. That is why it is important that this provision
remain if we are allowing the illiterate to vote.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 2:00 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:20 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May we request-that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, we have more or less agreed on a possible
compromise.
We keep the provision on lines 17 to 19 pretty much as it is with a minor
change. It will now read: In the case of the disabled and the illiterate, the
legislature shall design a PROCEDURE which will not require the assistance of
another person. UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE PROVIDES FOR THE APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURE,
THE ILLITERATE AND THE DISABLED SHALL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE UNDER
THE EXISTING LAW AND SUCH RULES AS THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
MAY PROMULGATE TO PROTECT THE
SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.
THE PRESIDENT: That is beautiful.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just ask the Committee a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Will the Commissioner please repeat the last phrase?
FR. BERNAS: THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS MAY PROMULGATE TO
PROTECT THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.
MR. MONSOD: Is the interpretation of the Committee TO PROTECT THE
SECRECY OF THE BALLOT under the existing rules and regulations or is the
Committee
equating secrecy of the ballot with the phrase will not require the assistance
of another person?
FR. BERNAS: My understanding is that during this interregnum, we leave the
matter to the COMELEC.
MR. MONSOD: Then, Madam President, I withdraw my previous motion and I
endorse this amendment of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: So, this is now a joint amendment by Commissioners
Monsod, Nolledo and Aquino.
FR. BERNAS: We accept, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
Will this amendment that Commissioner Bernas has just read take effect
during the ratification of our Constitution?
FR. BERNAS: No, because until this Constitution is ratified, it is just a piece of
paper. So, in the ratification, we will be governed by the Omnibus
Election Code.
MR. DE CASTRO: There will be the same assistor in the same booth from
morning till afternoon?
FR. BERNAS: I beg the Commissioners pardon?
MR. DE CASTRO: The Commissioner said that in the ratification of the
Constitution we are drafting, we will be governed by the existing law and that
is, the
Omnibus Election Code.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then I said that there will be the same assistor in the same
booth where he will stay from morning till afternoon.
FR. BERNAS: The provision of the Omnibus Election Code, whatever it is, will
govern.
he
is able to vote in Manila.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, may I then suggest to the Committee to
change the word Filipinos to QUALIFIED FILIPINO VOTERS. Instead of
VOTING BY
FILIPINOS ABROAD, it should be QUALIFIED FILIPINO VOTERS. If the
Committee wants QUALIFIED VOTERS LIVING ABROAD, would that not satisfy
the requirement?
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Monsod say?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I think I would accept the phrase
QUALIFIED FILIPINOS ABROAD because QUALIFIED would assume that he
has the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications to vote.
MR. TINGSON: That is right. So does the Committee accept?
FR. BERNAS: QUALIFIED FILIPINOS ABROAD?
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: When Commissioner Bengzon asked me to read my
proposed amendment, I specifically stated that the National Assembly shall
prescribe a system
which will enable qualified citizens, temporarily absent from the Philippines.
to vote. According to Commissioner Monsod, the use of the phrase absentee
voting already took that into account as its meaning. That is referring to
qualified Filipino citizens temporarily abroad.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, we accepted that. I would like to say that with respect to
registration we will leave it up to the legislative assembly, for example, to
require where the registration is. If it is, say, members of the diplomatic
corps who may be continuously abroad for a long time, perhaps, there can be
a
system of registration in the embassies. However, we do not like to preempt
the legislative assembly.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify, Commissioner Monsods amendment is only
to provide a system.
R.C.C. NO. 35
Monday, July 21, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:47 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Francisco A. Rodrigo.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. RODRIGO: O Diyos na lubhang
Makapangyarihan:
Kamiy Iyo sanang damayan, tulungan
Sanay liwanagin ang aming isipan;
Linisin ang aming pusot kalooban;
Pasipaging lubos ang aming katawan
Upang ang tungkuling aming pinapasan
Ay aming matupad, aming magampanan
At sa gayoy aming maisakatuparan
Ang aming adhikang magharap sa bayan
Ng Saligang Batas na naglalarawan
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present *
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present *
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present *
Rigos
Present*
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present *
Rosales
Present *
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present *
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present *
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present *
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present *
bicameral or
unicameral legislature. I am a member of the Committee, Madam President,
and when we voted on whether it should be unicameral or bicameral, the
vote was a
tie, and so the Chairman, in order to break the tie, voted in favor of a
unicameral structure.
And so, the whole report of the Committee is based on a unicameral
legislature, but it is possible that the body itself as a whole might vote for a
bicameral assembly. In which case, the whole report will have to be changed
to conform to a bicameral structure.
And so, when we had that caucus of all the Commissioners, I suggested that
we first decide on this prejudicial questions that we will not be wasting too
much time.
MR. ROMULO: May I suggest, and this was made in consultation with the
Chairman, Commissioner Davide, that he proceed with his sponsorship
speech, after
which we can have a freewheeling discussion on a unicameral versus a
bicameral legislature and then go into caucus thereafter.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable to the Commissioner?
MR. RODRIGO: If that is the desire of the Chairman of the Committee.
MR. ROMULO: It is, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I conform.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader recognized:
CONSIDERATION OF C.R. NO. 22
(Article on the National Assembly)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. ROMULO: I move that we consider Committee Report No. 22 on Proposed
Resolution Nos. 35, 92 109, 132, 150, 157, 189, 235, 256, 290, 310, 319,
321, 334,
336, 337, 364, 375, 381, 396, 400 and 403 as reported out by the
Committee on the Legislative.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Consideration of Committee Report No. 22 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary General will read only the title of the
committee
report without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Committee Report No. 22, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN ARTICLE ON THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.
(The following is the whole text of the proposed Article on the National
Assembly per C.R. No. 22.)
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 22
The Committee on the Legislative to which were referred the following:
Resolution No. 35, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR SIGNIFICANT MULTISECTORAL
REPRESENTATION IN THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE.
Introduced by Hon. Villacorta.
Resolution No. 92, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION
WHICH PROHIBITS CONGRESS TO DEFINE, PRESCRIBE, AND APPORTION THE
JURISDICTION OF INFERIOR
COURTS WITHOUT THE PRIOR RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.
Resolution No. 109, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IN THE NEW
CONSTITUTION.
Introduced by Hon. Romulo, Monsod, Nieva, Bengzon, Jr. and Bernas.
Resolution No. 132, entitled:
Garcia,
Guingona, Jamir, Lerum, Rodrigo, Sumulong and Treas as sponsors and
Commissioners Villacorta, Romulo, Regalado, Foz, Gascon, Tingson, Monsod,
Rigos and
Sarmiento as cosponsors.
(Sgd.) Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Chairman
Committee on the Legislative
(Sgd.) Adolfo S. Azcuna
Vice-Chairman
(Sgd.) Ahmad Domocao Alonto
special election to be held within sixty days after the vacancy occurs to elect
the Member to serve the unexpired term.
SECTION 8. The National Assembly shall convene once every year on the
fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed
by
law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may
determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session,
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. However, it may be
called to session at any time by the President to consider such subjects or
legislation as he may designate.
SECTION 9. (1) The National Assembly shall, by a majority vote of all its
Members, elect its Speaker from the Members thereof. It shall choose such
other
officers as it may deem necessary.
(2) A majority of all the Members of the National Assembly shall constitute a
quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day
and
may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under
such penalties, as the National Assembly may provide.
(3) The National Assembly may determine the rules of its proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of twothirds of
all its Members, suspend or expel a Member but if the penalty is suspension,
this shall not exceed sixty days.
(4) The National Assembly shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, excepting such parts, as may, in its judgment,
affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the
request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal.
SECTION 10. The National Assembly shall have an Electoral Tribunal which
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of its Members. It shall be composed of nine members, three of
whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the National Assembly
who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the
political
parties or sectors represented therein. The senior justice in the Electoral
Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
SECTION 11. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of
twenty-four Members of the National Assembly, elected by it on the basis of
the Members three days before its passage, except when the President
certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be
allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the
yeas
and nays entered in the Journal.
SECTION 24. (1) Every bill passed by the National Assembly shall, before it
becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he
shall
sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to
the National Assembly, which shall enter the objections at large on its
Journal. The bill may be reconsidered by the National Assembly and, if
approved by two-thirds of all its Members, shall become a law. The President
shall
act on every bill passed by the National Assembly within thirty days after the
date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had
signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in
an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the
item or items to which he does not; object.
SECTION 25. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
National Assembly shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
(2) The National Assembly may by law authorize the President to fix within
specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may
impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues,
and other duties or imposts.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches, and parsonages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
buildings, and
improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable,
or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the National Assembly.
SECTION 26. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriations made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, paid, or
used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,
provinces on the basis of uniform and progressive ratio, and further taking
into account the qualification of being a contiguous, compact and adjacent
territory. The scheme tries to remedy the unbalanced and inadequate
legislative representation prevalent before the 1973 Constitution. Thus, each
province
would be entitled to at least one representative including additional
representatives if its population so warrants.
Innovation, however, is the proposal of the Committee to include sectoral
and party list representatives. The advocates of this proposal
Commissioners
Villacorta, Monsod and others argue that in order to provide the broadest
participation in policy-making, representatives of sectors, particularly those
belonging to the marginal groups in our society and those who under
ordinary circumstances cannot hope to win in an election, should be afforded
the chance
to articulate their concerns and aspirations.
3. Term of Office. The Committee proposes for a four-year term without
limit to reelection. The Committee believes that the scheme would afford an
opportunity for a continuous training experience for future leaders whose
fate in the political arena should be decided by the people and not by law.
4. Initiative and Referendum. Madam President, after the ratification of
this Constitution which institutionalizes people power through the method of
initiative and referendum, nobody can accuse this Commission of being
callous and indifferent to the realization of the opportunity of the people to
initiate legislation and at the same time approve or reject such by means of
referendum, because the Committee has incorporated the processes under
Section
27 of the proposed draft. Guided by the doctrine that sovereignty resides in
the people, the Committee thus felt that the National Assembly shall provide
for the manner, procedure and limits of initiative and referendum. The main
proponents of initiative and referendum are Commissioners Romulo, Garcia
and
Gascon. Before the events in EDSA in February, people who have had direct
experiences on the harshness of life, of arms, already know what the
problems
are, and how to respond and react to these problems. Giving them these
means of peacefully ventilating their dreams and aspirations will make the
democracy
that we, as a people, so badly aspire for to be very participatory and
dynamic.
The realization that these processes are there for the people to use will force
people to think not as individuals but as communities. People will then
know that they simply cannot depend on individual action but on collective,
direct action. The presence of these in-the Constitution will also be a check
on a legislature that is not responsive to the vital and urgent needs of the
people.
Commissioner Garcia so said in one of the Committee meetings that the
process may never be used at all, but the point is, it is there for them to use
whenever they wish, whenever they desire, and whenever they want to
struggle.
5. Electoral Tribunal. The Committee proposes for the restoration of an
Electoral Tribunal in the National Assembly which shall be the sole judge of
all
contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of its members.
This decision was based on the proposal of the COMELEC to transfer the
responsibility to an Electoral Tribunal similar to the bodies formed under the
1935 Constitution. The Electoral Tribunal offers a mixed system in which
both the National Assembly and the judiciary play their part, thus reflecting
both the respect for parliamentary sovereignty and the need for legal
impartial decisions.
6. Commission on Appointments. The Committee also proposes for the
restoration of the Commission on Appointments which was a feature of the
1935
Constitution but deleted in the 1973 Constitution. Owing to the penchant of
appointing authorities to choose and appoint favored friends and relatives
whose qualifications and integrity are questionable, the Committee was
compelled to reincorporate in the proposed Constitution this body to review
and
approve the appointments of public officials who are directly appointed by
the President. The interpretation of this proposal, however, would be to
exclude
appointments to the judiciary for the reason that under the Article on the
Judiciary, the members of the judiciary would no longer be subject to
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. This provision is one of
the classical checks and balances of the Constitution. Although it might
negate
the concept of separation of powers, it makes sense if one regards
appointments as an administrative rather than a political action.
7. Immunity from Arrest. The object of parliamentary immunities is to
protect the members from repressive measures or from legal actions by the
government or by private persons. Immunities may seem to derogate from
the principle that citizens are equal before the law, but the object is to insure
the smooth running and complete independence of Parliament. As Ameller
reported, all countries without exception endorse this principle of
necessary, to expose abuses and seek redress. The procedure provides the
opposition with a means of discovering the governments weak points and
because of the publicity it generates, it has a salutary influence on the
administration. On the whole, because of the detailed facts elicited during
the interpellation or in the written answers, it will help members to
understand the complicated subject matter of bills and statutory measures
laid before the Assembly. It may be added that the popularity of this
procedure
can be attributed to the fact that in making use of his right to ask questions,
the member is a completely free agent of the people. The only limits on his
actions are the rules governing the admissibility of questions concerned with
matters of form and not with the merits of the issue at hand. The fact that
we also impose a time limit means that the government is obliged to furnish
the information asked for and this obligation is what gives the procedure its
real strength. This concept is a feature of a parliamentary form of
government.
11. The prohibition against Members of the National Assembly to appear as
counsel in certain instances. Under the proposed Section 17, it is stated
that:
No Member of the National Assembly shall appear as counsel before any
court which is not of collegiate composition, before any court in any civil
case
wherein the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein any officer or
employee
of the government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his
office, before the Electoral Tribunal, or before any administrative body.
Neither
shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with,
or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government, or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any
government-owned or controlled corporation, during his term of office. He
shall not
intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his
pecuniary benefit.
12. We also incorporated here a proposal that the sessions of the National
Assembly must be continuous and be determined unless a different period or
date
is fixed by law. So the sessions shall be continuous for such number of days
as may be determined until 30 days before the opening of its next regular
session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. However, it may
be called to session at any time by the President to consider such subjects or
Philippines to the United States under the Treaty of Paris, we had a military
government
which was later replaced by a civil government in 1900. During this time, the
Executive and the legislative functions were exercised by a Commission. With
the passage of the Philippine Bill of 1902, a bicameral legislature was
created, transforming the Philippine Commission into the Upper Chamber
and
constituting the Philippine Assembly as the Lower House.
In 1916, pursuant to the Jones Law, legislative power was vested in an allFilipino bicameral legislature with the Senate as the Upper Chamber and the
House of Representatives as the Lower Chamber. The Senators then were
elected from the twelve senatorial districts In the 1935 Constitution, we
again
adopted a unicameral legislative body known as the National Assembly. The
Convention then rejected the proposal for a bicameral legislature with an
Upper
House called the Senate. The failure of the bicameralist position was due to
the division on the question of representation. The Committee on the
Legislative proposed that Senators be elected throughout the Philippines on
the basis of proportional representation. Others, however, advocated that
each
province shall be entitled to one Senator, as the practice in the United
States. Still others preferred the system of senatorial district under the Jones
Law of 1916.
During the time of President Manuel L. Quezon, an amendment providing for
a bicameral legislature was adopted. Senators were elected nationwide. I
may say
that the reason President Quezon advocated for a bicameral form of
legislature is not primarily that he was wary of a strong unicameral body that
can
dislodge him anytime by impeachment, but that he believed that the Senate
affords a sufficient critical and methodical review of legislation. It assumes
the role of moderating force in the formulation of legislative policies. It
serves as a fiscalizer on the actions of the Lower House, which in usual
practice is prone to passing excessive appropriations acts and other forms of
legislations that may prove detrimental to the interest of the nation. The
Senate, Madam President, according to President Quezon, will serve as a
balance for harmony between the executive and the legislative departments
and
provide a training ground for future leaders. It may be said that it also serves
as a vanguard against the activities of politicians and lobbying pressure
groups and, likewise, safeguards any possible encroachment upon the
constitutional liberties of the people.
Nobody knew Rodrigo until I became a candidate for the Senate, but when
I campaigned all over the Philippines, all of a sudden, undeservedly, my
name was
projected. Padilla, of course, was already known because he was the captain
of our basketball Olympic team that participated in Berlin, but then, he was
also projected nationally, no longer as an athlete but as a political leader
when he campaigned nationally. Even Manglapus and Ninoy Aquino were not
known
nationally. They were not known in Mindanao until they campaigned as
Senators nationally. Also, a Senator elected at large is less susceptible to
pressure.
If he wins or loses, he wins or loses by hundreds of thousands, if not millions,
of votes. So, a political ward leader who commands or who pledges to
command, let us say, 10,000 votes or even 20,000 votes cannot scare a
Senator, but he can scare a Congressman who is elected only in district and
who can
win or lose by only a hundred votes. This was our experience in the Senate of
which I was a Member for 12 years. There were times when the Members of
the
House of Representatives would come up and say: Soc; mayroon kaming
inaprubahang bill doon sa Lower House; masama, hindi ko gusto pero hindi
ako
makatanggi sa isang lider. Kayo na ang bahala sa Senado, patayin ninyo ang
bill na iyon. This happened several times. And, of course, since the Senators
were elected at large like the President of the Philippines, they could stand
up to the President, and this can be attested to by facts. The Senators could
refuse the President or even take a stand against that of the President even
if the President belongs to their own party.
One objection to having a Senate is that it is expensive to campaign
nationally. On the contrary, it is less expensive than campaigning in a district
because it is not personalized. We do not buy votes because it is futile to buy
votes. We do not kowtow; we do not finance political ward leaders. As a
matter of fact, Madam President, it was my experience that when I
campaigned for the first time for the Senate with a team all around the
Philippines, I
spent only for my airplane tickets and hotel expenses. This campaign
coincided with the local elections in 1955. When I came back to my
hometown, I found
out that the candidate for mayor who won in my hometown spent more than
I did because he had to buy votes and finance ward leaders.
That is my stand, Madam President. I am for a bicameral system of
legislature with Senators elected at large.
the
Congressmen depended on the Senators for the disapproval of a bill.
Senators are the best material for our country, either for President or for
ambassadors
to foreign countries.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I ask a question of Commissioner
Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: Gladly.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon will please proceed.
MR. BENGZON: One of the arguments for unicameralism is that would be too
expensive to have a bicameral form of government because we will have two
Houses,
and, naturally, the budget for these is substantial. What can the
Commissioner say about that?
MR. RODRIGO: There is no doubt that a bicameral system of legislature
involves more expense. And not only that, lawmaking would be less
expeditious because
the bill has to pass through two Houses.
But to my mind, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. And I think
whatever little amount we will add for the Senate after all the Senate, if
revived, will be elected on national level, at large, which will be composed of
only 24 Senators will not really be very expensive.
I know there are arguments, there are disadvantages, but I still believe, and I
repeat, that the advantages to the country of having a Senate elected at
large outweigh the disadvantages.
MR. BENGZON: Even if the Commissioner considers the fact that there will be
more politicking if we have a Senate than if we have a unicameral system of
legislature, he still considers a bicameral system of legislature
advantageous?
MR. RODRIGO: I do not know what the Commissioner means by more
politicking. But if there is a Senate, yes, there will be politicking, but it will
be
high-level politicking based on national issues and on what is good for the
whole country. It will not be parochial politicking where we have to kowtow to
ward leaders.
MR. RODRIGO: I am aware of it because the Commissioner said it. But it was
not only suited to the Filipino people but also to the time then, because at
that time Mindanao was very, very far from Luzon. As a matter of fact,
Bulacan was only 35 kilometers from Manila, but many had not been to
Manila so I was
very proud when I came to Manila and told them about the trambia. During
that time, of course, there were no airplanes. So how could we campaign
nationally? Remember that I was running for the Senate elected at large. In
1898, it was impossible for anybody to campaign all over the Philippines.
This
was the reason we had a unicameral system of legislature.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank the Commissioner for the clarification. But is it not a
fact that basically and fundamentally bicameralism is an Anglo-Saxon
political
institution which was adopted by the United States?
MR. RODRIGO: I am not aware of that, but why not if it happens to be good,
whether it came from the Anglo-Saxons or from the Americans?
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, I pointed out that circumstance because it
would appear that in the Philippines we have no blue-blooded aristocracy as
in the
case of Great Britain wherein they have the House of Lords.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, but then we do not want to have a House of Lords. What
we want is a Senate elected by the people in a democratic way; in other
words,
elected at large.
MR. SUAREZ: Would the Commissioner not equate the Senators of the land
with the Lords of England?
MR. RODRIGO: No.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, I would like to ask some questions of
Commissioner Rodrigo.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: The theory upon which the Senate is organized and
predicated is the representation of another interest in the nation aside from
the common
interest represented by the Congress. Is there an interest diverse and
different from the interest of the mass of the Filipino people that we have to
institute a Senate to protect this other interest?
In the United States, it is necessary because there are in the original
composition certain states of diverse interests. The bigger states
predominate and
their interests are advanced and protected. If its population were small there
would have been only one body.
But here in the Philippines, we do not have this differentiation of interest that
we have to organize a Senate to protect or represent the interest of a
particular sector. From Batanes to Jolo, the composition of the people, their
representatives, as well as their interests are the same. So the existence of
the Senate as a representative body to protect the interest of this group
could not be justified. I think its existence could only be justified on one
condition: That it is there to serve as a balance or to countercheck in case
there is a hasty proposition by the Lower House. Outside of this point of
justification, there are no diverse interests; we are all Filipinos. I repeat. our
interests are the same; there are no states, and the existence of a
Senate, therefore, could not be justified. I can think of only one Justification,
and that is, to countercheck a hasty legislation as well as to promote
general interest on the basis of what is right.
Therefore, how do we justify the existence of a Senate?
MR. RODRIGO: While we do not have federal states or different states like the
United States, we have different interests. For example, there is the sugar
bloc interest; the copra interest; the tobacco interest; and the rice and corn
interest. In Mindanao, we have other interests there. And it had been my
experience that there were bills coming from the House which favored one
bloc, and at that time, the sugar bloc happened to be the most powerful bloc
in
the House.
When it comes to the Senate, we see that this interest might prejudice
Mindanao especially Jolo. So we correct this because we have been to Jolo;
we
campaigned there, and if we are running for reelection, we will campaign
again in Jolo.
If there is an undue advantage to the sugar bloc against another group, let
us say, copra or tobacco, then we balance.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Since the Commissioner has presented and persuaded the
body that in a Senate there is not exactly a state or group interest but
interests of
various groups being balanced or checked in the interest of all, I yield my
opposition to this and concede to him, having had that experience that we
need
the Senate.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: First of all, let me report that among the people I have had
the privilege to ask during the public hearings, the overwhelming majority of
those who responded are for a unicameral system of legislature. However, I
would like to ask the proponents of the unicameral system of legislature this
question: Is there any reason for the dissatisfaction with the old setup? Was
not the setup of having a Senate and a House of Representatives a
satisfactory arrangement? In fact, in our own historical experience as has
been brought out repeatedly here, it would seem that having a bicameral
system
of legislature was indeed more advantageous to the people and that it was
able to safeguard or at least attempted to safeguard more forcefully the
freedom
of the legislature against manipulation by interested forces.
I have, however, one observation in favor, I think, of the unicameral system
of government and it is this: Despite the advantages presented before by the
previous speakers and despite the disadvantages of having only selfish
interests represented by the unicameral system of legislature, let us not
forget
that 20 years under the Marcos regime has conscienticized and politicized
the Filipino people. So that, I think, not only politicians but even ordinary
people now think on a wider and on a national level. For that reason, there is
less danger today of having a unicameral system of legislature composed
simply of a group of people representing district or sectoral interest, and that
there is greater hope today of having a unicameral system of legislature
which has also the national interest very much at heart.
I just want to present those comments.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Uka be recognized, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Uka is recognized.
MR. UKA: Madam President, members of the Committee, I am for a bicameral
system of legislature. The greatest democracies in the world have a
bicameral
system of legislature, examples of which are Great Britain or England, with
the House of Lords and the House of Commons and the United States, who
taught
us democracy in this part of the world, with a Senate and a House of
Representatives. There are many more democracies that have a bicameral
system of
legislature.
Their long experience has taught them that a bicameral system of legislature
is more useful and practical, and that it provides for the principle of check
and balance which we have learned in our political science classes. The
executive cannot easily control a bicameral legislature. Look at what
happened to
our unicameral legislature in the recent past; we do not have it now; it was
abolished. A bicameral system of legislature, therefore, will prevent the
growth of a dictatorship which we do not like.
The Senate is usually composed of experienced elderly lawmakers and it is a
good training ground for executives of our country. A bicameral system of
legislature is what we need. I am for it. Moreover, a bicameral system of
legislature insures a wider and proper representation of all sectors. It insures
proper balance because there is stability in lawmaking. We often hear it said
that two heads are better than one. I think this is in line with nature. Look
at what we have: two eyes, two legs, two hands, two ears, two nostrils, two
lips, ad infinitum. I will not mention anymore the others which are
unmentionable and the very few exceptions. Most of us have two spare parts
really, with very few exceptions like the more important ones. I, therefore,
vote for a bicameral system of legislature because it is reasonable, practical,
useful and in accordance with nature.
Thank you very much.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Vice-President Padilla be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Vice-President Padilla is recognized.
We say an accused is entitled to a speedy trial, but the people will never say
they want speedy legislation if it is not carefully considered. In other
words, we need quality rather than quantity. Many say that the best
government is least government. In other words, the less interference,
obstruction and
control by the State as against free private enterprise and less regulation of
the exercise of constitutional rights, the better is the government. I would
say that the less legislative statutes are passed, the better for the nation,
provided we select the few well-studied ones.
So this argument in favor of unicameralism for speedy legislation is, I think,
the best argument against unicameralism and in favor of bicameralism.
It is said that unicameralism is more effective, but how can we have a better
system to check legislation before it reaches the President for his approval
or veto? If we agree on a system of check and balance among the three
departments of government, we should also sponsor and maintain the same
system
between the Senate and the House of Representatives.
As was already stated, and I agree with Senator Rodrigo, there had been
many instances where bills were approved in the Lower House and some of
its Members
who could not publicly oppose the measures would confidentially request a
Senator to oppose it as said congressmen were against the bills. A
congressman
would admit but could not speak against it on the floor of the House and
expect the Senate to disapprove that particular measure.
Madam President, another argument is that unicameralism is more
economical, but let us consider the fact that there are only 24 Senators
elected at large,
eight every two years for the Senate to be a continuing body. And if some
would say that there is an increase in population, therefore, we should also
increase the number of Senators, say, to 30, which would involve only a
small sum, Madam President, since the appropriation for the Senate is one of
the
smallest items in the budget.
The question of expenses for a group of Senators elected by the people
throughout the nation who have a record of good performance in the public
service
and who are expected to protect the national interest in its widest
perspective, rather than the district or provincial or other sectoral or regional
consideration, is, I believe, a very poor argument. I believe a National
Assembly of 250 Members is a very big and probably an unruly assembly. I
am not
against more representation from the people including the sectoral groups,
but it is really very difficult if we limit the process of legislation to one
Chamber especially when it has so many Members. We are only 48 Members
in this Commission, but it is quite more than extensive in its deliberations
because
many Commissioners express their views and counterviews.
So I agree with the other Commissioners who have spoken before me that
the Senate is more responsive and more representative than the National
Assembly of
many Members, because it is expected that many of the Members of the
Lower Chamber will have for their primary objective the development and
the protection
of the interest of their respective districts or of the territory and the people
they represent, while the Senate, because they are elected at large, has a
more national and broader perspective. I recall, Madam President, when
President Marcos declared martial law, I suggested to the Members of the
Senate,
since it was our last day of session and there were many pending matters for
approval on Third Reading, that we no longer attend to them but consume
the
time to oppose martial law in writing to form part of the Senate Record. The
leaders of the Liberal Party, including Senators Roxas and Salonga, probably
to save time, did not run counter to it. Notwithstanding that suggestion, it
was the distinct honor and privilege of a colleague in this Commission,
Lorenzo Sumulong, to speak against the declaration of martial law and
explain its nature and effects, and I tried to interpellate only to impress
further
the principles being enunciated by Senator Sumulong.
Some events of the historical past showed that when there was that
infamous Corregidor training camp, the Jabidah, it was the Senate that
exposed that
anomaly. When there was an illegal transfer of P26.2 million, it was the
Senate, through Senator Aquino, that exposed that anomaly also.
Commissioner
Nolledo has that in his book; a case was even filed in the Supreme Court but
it was unfortunately dismissed on the technicality that it constituted a
political issue which we have tried to remedy under the leadership of Chief
Justice Roberto Concepcion of the judiciary. I recall that the land grabbing in
Nueva Vizcaya and Isabela by President Marcos through his different
corporations was exposed by Representative Leonardo Perez of Nueva
Vizcaya. But soon
thereafter, he was silenced presumably by orders of Mr. Marcos. It was the
Senate that revived and exposed that land grabbing anomaly, and Senator
Rodrigo
did actively cooperate with me in the Senate. There are many other
situations, Madam President, but what I am trying to say is that I do not look
down on
the Members of the House of Representatives because there were many
illustrious men in it who were as capable, as competent, as nationalistic and
as
patriotic as the Members of the Senate. And, in fact, many of those elected
to the Senate were the Congressmen who, by the record of their
performance, had
rendered in peoples opinion valuable services in the process of legislation
and also considered as a body of responsible men against the possible
abuses
of the President.
The Record of the Congress would show that when the legislation started
from the Senate and had to be concurred by the other House, it led to better
and
more responsive legislation. There was diversity of provisions, but it was
ironed out in a joint conference committee between representatives of the
Senate
and of the Lower House. And it was on that joint conference committee at
the Manila Hilton, on the last day of the session, as we were trying to reach a
satisfactory compromise on the conflicting provisions of the Customs Code
on the import duties, when Senator Aquino was arrested upon declaration of
martial law and, thereafter, the other two, Senators Diokno and Mitra.
In brief, Madam President, I would like to revive the former system of two
Chambers, not because I have any further intention to be a candidate to the
Senate I think I have rendered enough but for the sake of the objectives
of President Quezon when he correctly suggested the election of the Senate
nationwide, and the advantages thereof having been mentioned by other
Commissioners including the fact that the Senate has been the nursery, we
might say,
of national leaders who aspire to be President and Vice-President elected
nation-wide.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Will the distinguished Vice-President answer only one point?
principle prevails over both sides for a compromise rate, and so they might
reach
a compromise of 15 percent instead of 10 or 20 percent.
MR. SUAREZ: So, practically and this is the charge levelled against a
bicameral system of legislation we are not only setting up two Houses but
we are
practically setting up three Houses, because the third House is represented
by the joint conference committee.
What can the Commissioner say to that, Madam President?
MR. PADILLA: It is very important to reconcile the two versions of the same
bill. The joint conference committee is not a separate institution but a part
of the legislature. And rather than rush without further discussion a bill
passed by the legislature, if there is no Senate and joint conference
committee,
this system will insure, precisely, better legislation.
MR. SUAREZ: But that is just the point; Madam President. There is no need
for reconciliation if there is only one legislative body.
MR. PADILLA: That is the problem because, if we have only one, there is no
check or possible review and that is the danger of having a unicameral
system of
legislature. There may be some statutes, especially other minor laws, that
will be passed even without adequate discussion and sometimes even
without the
knowledge of some Members. But under the bicameral system of legislature
that situation will never happen.
MR. SUAREZ: What we are trying to point out also, Madam President, is that
not only will legislation be delayed but it will also be duplicated, as what
happened in the United States Congress in the case of the immigration bill. I
understand that that bill passed by the House of Representatives has a
different connotation insofar as the Senate is concerned, and that was
thrown, precisely, before the joint conference committee. And up to now, for
more
than a year, that piece of legislation has been frozen and the two Houses in
the joint conference committee cannot seem to reconcile the interest, as well
as the date of the effectivity of that law.
Does the Commissioner not think a situation like that would block the
principle of speedy disposition of legislation?
MR. PADILLA: As I stated earlier, the more important argument is not speed. I
do not believe we have to rush many legislative measures only at the
instance
of one Chamber. We will have many laws, some of which are not good laws.
What our people need is less legislation, less government. It is a wrong
impression that our people need more laws, more statutes.
With regard to that situation in the United States, I am not familiar with it.
But if the graver issues are involved in a piece of legislation, the more
important and far-reaching its consequences, the better that there be greater
discuss not only separately in the two Chambers but also jointly in the
conference report, and probably greater circulation of the proposed
legislation for a responsive public opinion. I believe that this argument on
slowness
of legislation against speedy legislation is, in my opinion, the best argument,
not for a unicameral legislature, but for a bicameral legislature.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Will the distinguished Commissioner yield to a few
questions?
MR. PADILLA: Very gladly.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
First of all, I would like to state that I have no preconceived notions on this
issue, but I cannot pass up this opportunity to benefit from the sponsors
experience because I want to learn so that I can vote intelligently when the
time comes. I would also like to advance the statement that my experience
in
bicameral and unicameral systems is very limited. Although I served as a
private secretary and legal counsel in the Seventh Congress, I did not learn
much
because Congress was dissolved. And contrary to the statement of
Commissioner Nolledo there were really so many Congressmen at that time
who shouted their
lungs out against that dissolution. In fact, they wanted to hold sessions but
the doors were barred. They were locked. And when I was serving in the First
Regular Batasang Pambansa I do not mind admitting that our experience
in that body was also rather limited there was a saying at that time that
we in
the ruling party were thinking so much and talking so little. On the other
hand, the Opposition at that time was always talking so much.
There are issues which have been indicated, and if the sponsor has already
answered them, so that we can save time, probably we can skip them. But
for
purposes of the Record, I will mention them.
The first issue is that a unicameral system is supposed to be simple,
uncomplicated, efficient; there is no duplication of work, of time, energy and
it is,
more or less, a simplified governmental process. There is only one body, so
there will be no two bodies working at cross purposes. Would the sponsor like
to add to the argument he mentioned on this?
MR. PADILLA: Only that in my opinion, one Chamber can rush enough pieces
of legislation that may not be very good to the nation and our people and
these
may have not been carefully studied and discussed while another Chamber,
like the Senate, would have the opportunity to check or even review, and this
is
vice versa because there are measures that come from the Senate to be
reviewed also or concurred in by the House. And as Commissioner Uka said,
Two heads
are better than one.
MR. MAAMBONG: The second issue of economy was already discussed by the
Gentleman, so we do not have to go into that. But there was a statement
that the
salaries and maintenance for another House could be better spent for
schools, hospitals and other public improvements.
The other issue, of course, is that they say that a unicameral body is more
democratic since the representatives are representing identified areas of the
country; thus, it is more representative of the people And the further
argument is that it becomes a little bit undemocratic if the Senate is
composed of
Senators, for example, who belong to another party, so that the greater
mass of the representatives of the people might agree on one kind of
legislation,
but when it reaches the Senate, because the composition is of another party,
a majority in the Senate can actually defeat the bill from the Lower House.
Could the Gentleman comment on that?
Floor Leader which consumed most of my time, if not all my time, like our
time
here in the Commission, and even as against the more learned and more
experienced senators.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President. The other issue is that a
unicameral form of legislature is more responsible and more responsive to
the immediate
needs of the people. But I think the Gentleman has discussed this. I would
like to go to another basic issue regarding delay because it has been stated
by
proponents of unicameralism that the delay is actually in the passage of
needed and urgent measures because of conflicting interests between the
Lower
House and the Upper House. Could the Gentleman comment on that?
MR. PADILLA: I should say that when there are some urgent and important
measures, there should be no conflicting interests between the House and
the
Senate. If we have to pass the budget, we have to cooperate in passing it
because it is necessary. With regard to some important measures, especially
if
they really affect the national interest or the good of the people both
Chambers should have the nationalism and patriotism to discharge their
duties in a
cooperative manner. It is wrong to always say that there is antagonism
between the House and the Senate; that when a measure comes from the
House, it will
be objected to by the Senate, or vice versa. I do not believe that is the
correct situation of our past experience. There should be cooperation, and I
believe that there may be honest differences of opinion; but when the
nations interest arises, both Chambers will act in favor of protecting and
endorsing
the national interest.
MR. MAAMBONG: Let me go to another basic issue regarding the check and
balance between the two Houses. It has been stated by some that the check
and
balance is actually between the three departments of the government. In
other words, the check is supposed to be interposed by the executive, and
furthermore, we do not need an Upper House because Members of the
legislature, if it is unicameral, can very well check on each other. I recall
when we
were serving in the First Regular Batasang Pambansa that even in the case of
the ruling party, when we passed that law which granted authority to the
barangay officials to administer oaths of office, it was only a one-sentence
law; but the Members of the Assembly who are here with us will attest to the
fact that it took us almost one month to debate on just one single sentence.
Is that not a sufficient check in the House itself?
MR. PADILLA: In that particular example, if it has been thoroughly discussed
one sentence discussed in one month I suppose the discussion was
thorough,
but thorough from the point of view of the House. The Senate might have
another view which may even be more important because they represent the
nation as
their election is nationwide.
MR. MAAMBONG: One final point, Madam President. They say that there is a
human defect inherent in the two-chamber system in the sense that they are
bound
to pass the buck to each other. They explained it in this manner, that there
is a human defect in one body which depends on the other. One body might
rely on the other body, believing that there was thorough discussion and
there was thorough study of the issues. And so, they say, Well, it has been
thoroughly discussed in one body; we just have to pass it.
How does the Gentleman respond to this?
MR. PADILLA: I think there is no passing of the buck or the blame or the
credit because in the bicameral system, both Chambers approve the
measure by at
least a majority vote. The Senate cannot say, This is the Houses bill,
because the Senate approved it.
The House cannot say, This is only the Senates because the House
approved it.
So, there is no shifting of responsibility. It is a concurrent, common
responsibility of both Chambers.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, there is no reliance on one Chamber on the
actuations of the other.
MR. PADILLA: No, I will not say that because if the Senate, for example, finds
that this measure coming from the House has been quite extensively
discussed
and its merits and demerits considered, then the Senate may take that into
account especially to avoid duplication. But the fact that it was considered
might lessen the degree of discussion on the Senate but it will still consider
the merits or demerits of that measure.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the Gentleman very much; he has been very kind.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, we have three more speakers for the
unicameral system this time. And with the indulgence of the body, I think we
can finish
this before lunch because the three speakers are noted not only for their
wisdom but for their brevity.
THE PRESIDENT: Three speakers without interpellation?
MR. ROMULO: Three speakers without interpellation, Madam President.
May I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
Maybe we can state that any interpellation can be made after lunch.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Madam President and Commissioner Romulo, for a
very broad hint for me to be brief. I shall try to be brief.
I would like to place our discussion of unicameralism or bicameralism in the
context of an ongoing revolution. We have been called to this Commission by
a
revolutionary government to the extent that it is a government that is a
product of the February revolution. And very much in the air these days are
phrases like people power, revolutionary Constitution, social justice,
those who have less in life should have more in law, decentralization.
Therefore, what we are trying to formulate here is a constitution that will set
up structures capable of continuing the goals of the revolution. It is
commonly said that the revolution of February was primarily a political
revolution. It was a revolution that released us from the political oppressions
that were institutionalized under the old regime; and last week we completed
what may be characterized as the most liberal Bill of Rights this nation has
ever had and to that extent, it was a further affirmation of the solid ground
upon which the success of the political revolution rests. But it is also said
that we still have to complete a social revolution.
And if we look at the Bill of Rights and the many proposals that are being
made in this Commission, we will see that, among the political guarantees,
we
find guarantees which by themselves are self-executory. But when it comes
to the guarantees of social and economic rights, the farthest we can go is to
set
goals for future legislatures to attain. And, therefore, what we are looking for
is a legislature that will be capable of attaining the social and economic
goals precisely because we, as a Constitutional Commission, cannot legislate
fully effective means for attaining these social and economic goals.
Therefore, the legislature which we must set up should be a legislature that
is capable of pushing these social and economic goals. In order for this
legislature to be able to push these social and economic goals, it must be a
legislature that is not insulated from the pressures of people power. It
should be a legislature that is more easily subject to the pressures of people
power, and the more than 70 percent of the underprivileged masses.
If we look at a legislative body and the nation, essentially, the Upper House
is a House that is insulated from the pressures from below. It is generally a
House that is protective of monied interests and propertied interests. And if
we look at the formation itself of the federal government of the United
States, the shift from isolated stage to a federated government was a move
among the propertied classes to move government away from the people so
that it
could be less subject to the pressures from below, from the poor, the farmers
and the debtors.
We have had a social justice provision in our Constitution since 1935. We
amended the social justice provision in 1971. We are again going through a
process of formulating social justice provisions, but I think this Commission
will not legislate. It will only set social justice goals. And so, we must
give our nation a legislature that is susceptible to the pressures of people
power. And they will be susceptible to the pressures of people power, if they
are forced to interact with their constituency so that if they lose in one
constituency, they cannot recoup their gains in another constituency where
they
may not be well known. In that sense, a unicameral body can be more
democratic, more capable of achieving this economic and social revolution
which we want
to attain.
It is said that bicameralism would draw to the legislature more mature, more
experienced and more able men. But if we have only one body, these
experienced
and more able men will have no other place to go but to that one body. And
they would have this advantage: that they will be people who would be
subject to
the pressures of people power.
We have seen that after World War II we created a political democracy that
was denominated by a particular ruling economic elite, and I think we have
to
respond to it directly now in this fourth attempt at drafting a Constitution by
providing the people power and direct access to the centers of power and
decision-making.
So, I think the basic issue when we discuss the legislative body is this: How
do we make the structures of government closer to the people? How do we
empower the people directly by providing access to the centers of decisionmaking?
I think the first thing in assuring the people is that the legislative body will
not be an interaction among representatives of the Senate and the House
but rather an interaction between the representatives and the people
themselves, indirectly.
So, I would like to support Commissioner Bernas position that what is
needed now is that legislature must have concrete interaction and must be
willing to
respond directly to what the people want. Secondly, I think the unicameral
legislature will be more appropriate towards the development of a new kind
of
politics, a politics based on issues and not on personalities. Only when we try
to develop politics based on issues will we be able to develop a genuine
popular democracy. Thirdly, I believe that when we establish a unicameral
system, we must also assure that in this unicameral system, there is direct
representation of sectors and it is much easier to provide direct sectoral
representation in a unicameral body rather than in a bicameral form of
legislature; thereby the legislature becomes more responsive to the genuine
and immediate needs of the people.
Some of my other arguments in favor of unicameralism are as follows: First, I
think it affords a simpler governmental organization. Only one body will
exercise the responsibility of formulating the nations public policy. I think we
must give confidence to the representatives in this House of
Representatives: and when the people decide who their representatives will
be, they will take upon themselves that direct responsibility of assuring that
legislation will be responsive to their needs. Second, a unicameral form will
provide effective control over the countrys fiscal policies and annual
budget appropriations. Third, I believe it is more democratic, because I do
not agree with the premise that there are local selfish interests of districts
as opposed to national interests as has been expressed already by some
other Commissioners. We are one nation and we have one national interest
and I
think, primarily, this interest is to respond to the needs of the poor, the
deprived and the oppressed and, to create and continue the struggle for a
social revolution. So, I do not believe that there are conflicting interests of
the Filipino people based on regional interests. I think what is clearer to
me is a conflicting interest between those who have and those who have not.
Fourth. I think a single and large Chamber affords greater representation for
the various sectors of society, and I think this is what the Committee and the
legislature wish to do. A second House only becomes a tool of special
interest groups, because it only promotes personalities and issues and we
project our national leaders based on their popularity or their personality,
and
I think we should not encourage this. These special interest groups tend to
dominate the Upper House simply because of the expense it entails to
campaign
on a national level and we know for a fact that the reality in Philippine
society is that the majority are poor and. therefore, access to the Upper
House
is virtually impossible.
Fifth, it will eliminate unwarranted distinctions between Senators and
Representatives which are without basis because they exercise the same
functions and
the sense of preeminence accorded a Senator is a vestige of aristocratic
origins which I do not think we should encourage.
What are the arguments I have against a bicameral form of legislature: First,
a two-chamber Congress is no assurance of a better considered and better
deliberated legislation. Although it affords double consideration of bills, it
might, in fact, encourage the two Houses to hastily pass legislation on the
assumption that the other House will review the same. In a unicameral form
with a larger deliberative body, the responsibility of these representatives
can
be emphasized to provide better bills, better legislations which are
responsive to the needs of the people. Besides, the function of checking the
legislature should not be among the two Houses. The function of checks and
balances should be between the legislature and other branches of
government;
namely, the executive and the judiciary.
Second, bicameralism produces duplication of efforts. The Senate has
become a stumbling block to progressive legislation emanating from the
House. I do not
think it is democratic to see a smaller House of Representatives vetoing a
larger representative body.
Third, serious deadlocks may occur in the enactment of important measures
which I think occur when there are varying interests between the majority in
the
House of Representatives and the majority in the Senate. Moreover, there
may be instances when there are legislations which meet the needs of a
particular
political bloc because, in reality, when we speak of checks and balances, it is
not a matter of the two Houses opposing each other, but an analysis of
these will tell more often than not that they come from the same political
parties. Therefore, this check is not a real check because they essentially will
vote along party lines. I think a better check is the legislative body with the
people. The people will, in fact, be the check and not two representatives
among themselves.
Fourth, a bicameral form represents and protects the vested interests of the
rich because only the wealthy individuals can make it to the Senate due to
the
prohibitive costs of campaign.;
Fifth, on the matter that it produces future leaders in the country, I think our
history of struggle against the dictatorship has shown that we do not need
an elite body of nationally elected individuals to represent new, future
upcoming national leaders. We have seen how the people can assert
themselves on
issues involving the national interest. I do not believe that it is the stature of
being a senator that makes us confront a dictator just as what has been
mentioned that there were some distinguished senators who opposed the
declaration of martial law.
I would like to remind the body that over and above these distinguished
individuals who have opposed the dictatorship, the common people, the
workers and
the peasants have continually opposed tyranny, dictatorship and oppression.
We do not need a bunch of elite people to speak for them. The people have
learned to speak for themselves and they can assert themselves and we
should provide them greater access towards asserting this basic right.
Thus, if we think that it is a good training ground, I would also like to remind
the body that there have been instances where their national leaders have
not come from the Senate. Notable in the Philippine context are Presidents
Magsaysay and Macapagal who came from the House of Representatives.
President
Aquino herself was never a politician. In the United States, there were at
least three Presidents who did not come from the legislative body but came
from
a direct executive position such as governor or mayor. Franklin Roosevelt,
Carter and Reagan were governors. My point is: We do not need a Senate as
a
training ground for future leaders. I think the best training ground is to
continue the struggle for truth, freedom and justice.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
Madam President, Commissioner Sarmiento feels that all the arguments have
been given, and so, he withdraws. And now that we have enough food for
thought,
may I suggest that we take care of our bodies.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 12:26 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:49 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, some Commissioners would like to
interpellate Commissioner Bernas, so I think we can do that now.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is requested to take the microphone.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Tingson would like to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: May I have the honor of asking a couple of questions of
Commissioner Bernas?
FR. BERNAS: I have the honor of answering the Commissioners questions.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you very much.
The Commissioner mentioned in his speech before we ate our lunch that
because of the social and economic goals that we must implement,
especially in the
light of the recent peaceful revolution, said goals can be more effectively
done by a unicameral body.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
had
proven themselves, to begin with. They are accept- able in their own local
districts and hometowns. And as such, they really are statesmen rather than
politicians.
May I just add here, if I may, that to me a politician is a man who only thinks
of the next election while the statesman prays for the next generation. And
it seems to me that that is exactly what the Upper House is and should be.
Does Commissioner Bernas agree?
FR. BERNAS: I do not fully agree with the Gentleman that that is what is
needed by the nation now. We do need statesmen first. But his statement
suggests
that with a Lower House only or one legislative body only, we will have no
similar statesmen. I disagree with him. But aside from having these
statesmen,
we will also have people who are in deeper contact with the masses.
MR. TINGSON: Commissioner Bernas was in America for some time; he is also
an authority on American history. If I am not mistaken, most of those who
were
elevated to the presidency were people who had their training in the Senate.
And is this not a very logical thing indeed by age, experience and
exposure
to national issues? There is indeed a need for the Senate because the
presidency involves national leadership, not just local.
FR. BERNAS: I am glad that the Commissioner mentioned America because I
do not think America should be the model for the Philippine government. Let
me say
why: The American government was formulated. as I said. in reverse of what
we are trying to do. The American government started from local
governments. And
if we look at the records of the Constitutional Convention of the United
States, particularly the debates between the Federalists and the antiFederalists,
the tenor of the arguments of the Federalists was precisely to create a
federal government removed from the people in order to silence the masses,
that
what we want?
MR. TINGSON: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: Is that what we want? Do we want to model our government
after America with all the defects of America? If one will read the book of
Charles
Beard written in 1915, The Economic History of the Constitution of the United
States American scholars have not stopped studying that book the
conclusion
many American scholars draw is that the Constitution formulated by the
Federalists, precisely, was not a democratic Constitution. It was designed to
silence the oppressed masses of the states. The state governments,
particularly the landed gentry, found themselves pressured by the masses.
And they
learned to protect their interests among themselves. They say Let us get
together so that we can protect ourselves from the masses. Is that what we
want
for this country?
MR. TINGSON: One will be glad to know that one of the schools in America
that I have the joy of attending was Loyola University in Chicago, the
Commissioners denominational university. And I also studied Charles Beard;
I remember that very well. I am not saying that I am an authority on him but
let that be so.
My next question and my last one is: Commissioner Bernas mentioned that
this revolution actually did happen because, in fact, we were fighting against
the
political structure that gave rise to the despotic rule of the discredited
leadership then. Do I understand that right?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. TINGSON: If so, then was not that revolution precisely against the
structure of unicameralism because it gave rise to a dictator? In answer to
that,
let us have a bicameral system from which a dictatorship or an authoritarian
rule will be harder to rise.
FR. BERNAS: I assure the Commissioner that if we were to poll the people
who gathered in EDSA, between Camp Crame and Camp Aguinaldo, and ask
them if
during that revolution they ever thought of a unicameral or bicameral body,
the vast majority of them will say, It had no relevance whatsoever with what
we are trying to do. We just wanted to get rid of Marcos. Bicameralism or
unicameralism was farthest from their mind.
MR. TINGSON: May I just say that probably it is farthest from their mind
because some of them do not have the political discernment that Father
Bernas and
I are supposed to have as Members of the Constitutional Commission. So,
they find that political matters, if I am not mistaken, are supposed to be
attended
by us in this Constitutional Commission. And that is why he and I are
debating now on the merits of the two systems. Am I not right?
FR. BERNAS: Basically, we disagree. But I do not believe that because we are
here, we are necessarily wiser than the masses. I do not believe that there is
nothing we can learn from them. It is simply that we are more articulate and
we have been projected more in the public eye. And for that reason, we have
been chosen. But is it a question of wisdom or unwisdom? Is it a question of
better or worse? I do not think that is the point at all. We cannot claim to
be better than they are. We cannot claim to be wiser than they are. We may
have had more formal education than they have, but we cannot claim that
they are
less educated than we are. And I do not wish the legislature that we are
formulating to be projected as an elitist legislature. If I may go back to the
Gentlemans reference to the American Constitution, that was the thrust of
the Federalists. That was the thrust of Madison. That was the thrust of
Jefferson. If he will read Federalist Paper No. 10 written by Madison, it is a
very clear affirmation of class superiority.
MR. TINGSON: I thank Commissioner Bernas. Those are his feelings and
opinions and I do have mine too. But thank you very much.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Natividad would like to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Will the Gentleman yield?
FR. BERNAS: Very willingly.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I have not really made up my mind yet on this issue and that
is the reason I would like to extricate some answers. There is an example
here.
First, I would just try to confirm what Commissioner Bernas said about the
House of Representatives. I served for 12 years in the House of
Representatives
in a province where most people from the barrios know how to recite and
compose poems on the spot, led by our distinguished Senator. But one will
believe
me and our distinguished Senator, who is highly respected and adored in
Bulacan, that even children in the barrios can compose poems and recite the
masterpiece of Balagtas. That is why I do not dare compose a poem there. I
am not a Soc Rodrigo so I do not dare compose a poem in the barrio. What I
would
like to confirm is that the campaign for a Congressman is quite different from
inevitable that there will be two different versions or two sets of the same bill
with different provisions. What happens is that if the conference
committee does not agree within the reglementary period of 100 days, the
bill is lost because we have to have a special session where bills considered
therein will have to be certified by the President. That is as far as our
experience in the Congress is concerned.
The other point I would like to talk about is hasty legislation. During our time
in the old Congress, we had our check and balance; there was the Senate,
the President and the courts for any unconstitutional legislation. If a law went
through a judicial review, it might be declared unconstitutional.
But here again we are considering additional safeguards like initiative.
referendum and even recall. So, I am asking this question: Would these not
suffice
as safeguards for a unicameral legislature? We shall have the committees
there and what is more potent is the prospect of recall, initiative and
referendum. Any of these is unusual, and if I know my politics, it will have an
impact on the future legislators of our country. It will be the end of
their career. If the law that one sponsored, through a mechanism of
referendum, is rejected by the people, or if an indifferent Congressman
refuses to
propose a bill which was approved through initiative resulting in an outrage
and outcry of the people such that he becomes subject of recall which is later
on approved, would this not constitute a very potent system of check and
balance?
FR. BERNAS: Again, I agree with the Commissioner and I might also add that
there can be no more potent obstacles to maturation than the realization
that
there is somebody there who will always correct you. So, if we have a House
of Representatives that knows that its mistakes will be caught by somebody
else
for correction, then the growth towards maturation will be stunted. The
sooner we leave them alone to stand by themselves, then the more
responsibly they
will act.
MR. NATIVIDAD: There is one statement I appreciate. The Congressmen are
really vulnerable to the pork barrel system and the public works projects.
Many of
our people translate good performance in terms of public works that they
take home and how many appointments they have engineered into the
bureaucracy. I
think if we have a unicameral system, this problem should be addressed. We
should make sure that all vestiges of the pork barrel system are not returned
much less can I agree to the proposition that the Senate in the Philippines
was set up by the elitist group.
Perhaps before 1941 and after the war and until about the time before
martial law, there were instances when certain business blocs voted certain
people
into the Senate, but these business blocs also voted people into the House of
Representatives.
I grant the proposition that the Members of the House of Representatives are
closer to the people that they represent. I grant the proposition that the
Members of the House of Representatives campaign on a one-to-one basis
with the people in the barrios and their constituencies. I also grant the
proposition that the candidates for Senator do not have as much time to
mingle around with their constituencies in their respective home bases as
the
candidates for the House. I also grant the proposition that the candidates for
the Senate go around the country in their efforts to win the votes of all
the members of the electorate at a lesser time than that given to the
candidates for the House of Representatives. But then the lesson of the last
14 years
has made us mature in our political thinking and has given us political will
and self-determination. We really cannot disassociate the fact that the
Congressman, the Member of the House of Representatives, no matter how
national he would like to think, is very much strongly drawn into the
problems of
his local constituents in his own district. So that necessarily and even
perhaps unconsciously. his mind, his efforts, his desire to help the nation
becomes parochial in many respects because he thinks of his constituents in
his own district.
Due to the maturity of the Filipinos for the last 14 years and because of the
emergence of people power, I believe that this so-called people power can
be
used to monitor not only the Members of the House of Representatives but
also the Members of the Senate. As I said we may have probably adopted the
American formula in the beginning but over these years, I think we have
developed that kind of a system and adopted it to our own needs. So at this
point
in time, with people power working, it is not only the Members of the House
who can be subjected to people power but also the Members of the Senate
because
they can also be picketed and criticized through written articles and talk
shows. And even the people not only from their constituencies in their
respective regions and districts but from the whole country can exercise
people power against the Members of the Senate because they are supposed
to
represent the entire country. So while the Members of Congress become
unconsciously parochial in their desire to help their constituencies, the
Members of
the Senate are there to take a look at all of these parochial proposals and
coordinate them with the national problems. They may be detached in that
sense
but they are not detached from the people because they themselves know
and realize that they owe their position not only to the people from their
respective provinces but also to the people from the whole country. So, I say
that people power now will be able to monitor the activities of the Members
of the House of Representatives and that very same people power can be
also used to monitor the activities of the Members of the Senate.
The last point I would like to take up is that it is unfortunate that the last
Members of the defunct Senate were belittled and not given much credit for
standing up against the declaration of martial law despite the fact that they
risked arrest and that, in fact, a great number of them were arrested and
incarcerated for a number of years. It is not only unfortunate but I think it is
most unkind. As a matter of fact, if we look in retrospect, a lot of
Filipinos liked martial law at the beginning because of the land reform that
was dangled on top of our heads. A lot of mothers and wives liked martial
law;
a lot of people liked martial law because at the beginning it was giving order
into our society. The slogan was: Sa ikauunlad ng bayan, disiplina ang
kailangan.
At the beginning it was so. I even noticed it myself in the simple manner of
conducting oneself in traffic. People were beginning to follow traffic rules.
They were giving way to one another. The economy was beginning to
improve until cronyism set in. So, we cannot say that people power was
against martial
law at the beginning because we really did not have any parliament of the
streets at that time. And so, where was people power? It was probably still in
the hearts of the Filipinos and was not yet really expressed that much. I feel
that the last Members of the defunct Senate were the first ones who stood
up
against martial law.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, Commissioner Padilla would like to be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President. Commissioner Padilla, is recognized.
leaders
who were responsible not only for the declaration of independence but for
the Constitution of the United States which stresses democracy defined by
President Lincoln later on as: the government of the people, by the people
and for the people.
We speak now of social and economic goals. That is why I proposed the word
progress in the Preamble of our Constitution to meet the economic goals
for
the betterment of the life of the Filipino people. But when we speak of people
power, more particularly the political miracle of February 22 to 25, the
peaceful revolution of the people, this refers to the outraged, feeling of the
sovereign people who suffered depressive and oppressive misrule by
absolute
power. But with regard to the many problems of the nation, we should
consult the people, feel their pulse, know their problems which I believe is
part of
leadership to be able to understand and to provide the solutions therefor. It is
not enough that there be a sentiment of the people, especially when it is
local or provincial, or in the adjective of Commissioner Bengzon, parochial,
that we immediately have to implement or follow because the problem of
one
sector or province may not be the same as the problem of another. And yet,
we must have a solution that is not local but national in scope and is
effective
throughout the nation. I would like to think of people power as an
enlightened public opinion.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, Commissioner Maambong would like to be
recognized for a brief interpellation.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized to interpellate
Commissioner Davide.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President and members of the Committee: I
mentioned earlier that when I was employed in the Seventh Congress, it was
dissolved. When I
was given a chance by the people of Cebu to serve in the First Regular
Batasang Pambansa, it was again dissolved. This dissolution is getting to be
a
habit, and if my luck will run its course, I even entertain nightmares that the
Commission might even be dissolved
recognize the
fact that if there is a peoples revolution again, any existing legislature may
also be abolished.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, the Committee is saying that we have all
the provisions under which the legislative can withstand the pressure of the
President except dissolution. There is nothing there in the Commissioners
statement of facts which would indicate that the President or the head of
State
could be prevented from dissolving the legislative body.
MR. DAVIDE: There is nothing that is provided for here on dissolution as used
in a parliamentary form of government because we are not adopting the
parliamentary system.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
Just one more very minor point.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I stand on a point of parliamentary inquiry. I
thought the arrangement that we have agreed upon this morning is that
after the
discussions on the pros and cons of the issue on the number of chambers
that the legislature would have, the body would then proceed to vote on the
prejudicial question as raised by Commissioner Rodrigo. I suggest that we
stick to the arrangement as agreed upon this morning. Are we going to follow
that
agreement, Madam President?
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I was assured by the Floor Leader that
we are not yet through with the interpellations on the matter of
unicameralism and
bicameralism; that is why I am now proceeding to interpellate with just one
or two questions and then will sit down after that.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, the Commissioners interpellation is still
related to the problem on what system we shall adopt if it is a unicameral
or
bicameral system.
MR. MAAMBONG: Precisely, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, with the permission of Commissioner
Maambong, may we seek the recognition of Commissioner Guingona for a
supplementary
statement relevant to the question asked by Commissioner Maambong?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
Our Chairman has already enumerated certain restrictions and powers of the
National Assembly or Congress in relation to the presidency and I would like
to
mention that in spite of the fact that the President is the commander-in-chief
of all the armed forces, under this committee report, it is still the
National Assembly which will have the sole, power to declare the existence of
a state of war.
I just want to mention the fact that we have to look at the Constitution as a
whole and, therefore, restrictions or limitations on the power of the
presidency or other related matters would be found in other provisions or
other articles of the Constitution like in the matter of impeachment, where
the
legislature would have a say with regard to the initiation and prosecution,
and, perhaps, in the matter of adjudication. In other words, not everything
which has to do with the relationship of the legislative or with the executive
would be found in this particular article.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, just for a point of information with respect
to the fears of Commissioner Maambong about a prospective further
dissolution
of the legislature if one day he will be in the legislative body.
Section 15 of the proposed Article on the Executive provides that a state of
martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution nor supplant
the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies and that refers to
the National Assembly as well as to the local legislative assemblies.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
More or less, that is a specific answer but I may be just engaging in wishful
thinking if I request the Committee to formulate probably a definitive
statement that whatever changes in the executive department, there should
be no dissolution of a legislative body which is composed of representatives
of
the people. But that is not for today, probably some other time when the
Committee will think about it.
In line with this question that I have posed is the matter of continuity of the
legislative body be it unicameral or bicameral. There is a statement to the
effect that if we have an Upper House, considering the staggered terms of its
members. at any time there will always be a group of available and
experienced men who can be depended upon to continue the policies of the
government, which is not true in the unicameral system because when it
adjourns or
when there is a new election, no member is left around. Will the Commission
on Appointment on the continuity?
MR. DAVIDE: I thank the Commissioner for asking that question because that
exactly is one of the evils in a bicameral system. It might happen that in a
given election, after the expiration of one-half term of the Senate members,
a new mandate from the people will actually be the outcome in the given
election. For a very hypothetical situation, let us assume that one-half of the
Members of the Senate belong to one particular party. This one-half will be
the one to remain because the term of the others may have expired at a
given period. But at the commencement of the term of the Members of the
Lower House
whose term now may be coextensive with the term of the remaining
Members of the Senate, we may have a Lower House elected from another
political party.
So we will have a National Assembly with an Upper House composed of
people belonging to one party and a Lower House composed of Members
belonging to
another party. So how can we have unity in that legislature? It would be a
chaotic legislature. That situation alone is the best argument against
maintaining a bicameral system of government.
MR. MAAMBONG: Actually, the question is more on the continuity of a
legislative body as an argument for those who are in favor of the bicameral
system
where at any given moment there is still a continuing legislative body.
MR. DAVIDE: Under our proposal there will always be a continuing legislative
body, because the election will be on the second Monday of May and they
will
assume on the 30th day of June, which would also be the end of the term of
the previous National Assembly. So there is a continuing body the National
Assembly.
MR. MAAMBONG: That answers my question.
Although the Committee reported out a unicameral system, it is still adopting
an open mind. But may I just pose this last question: There is a statement
and fathers have been killed by the military, often with arms provided by the
United States.
I believe it will be this kind of people, already aware of their rights, who will
exert pressure on their local representatives for them to be more
responsive. And responsiveness will exert a heavy demand on the
representatives for them to acquire a deep and comprehensive
understanding not only of the
local problems but much more so of how these local problems are very
intimately interconnected with national and international problems.
I think having a unicameral legislature is no argument for the difficulty of
evolving competent and numerous national leaders. Right now, we already
have
this evolution of national leaders in a number of peoples sectoral
organizations who have acquired a deep understanding, as I said earlier. of
local
problems and of how these local problems are intimately linked with national
and international problems. Let us not underestimate them. I think a
unicameral legislature will be much more democratic and much more
responsive.
I am, therefore, for a unicameral legislature.
Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, since there are no other registered
speakers, I think we can now vote on the main question. May I ask for a short
recess so
that I can frame the question with the Committee, just to make sure that it is
fairly put?
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:57 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:06 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
had
here.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman is objecting to the second motion?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: The period of debate was already terminated. I would like to
remind the Gentleman that we are now at the point of voting whether we
shall
have a bicameral or a unicameral legislature.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I agree with that. What I am objecting to is to allow the
absent Members to reserve their vote so that they can vote tomorrow or the
day
after tomorrow.
MR. DE CASTRO: Suppose the absent Member has asked permission because
of physical necessity?
THE PRESIDENT: We will submit this motion on whether those absent now
will be allowed to cast their votes one way or the other at a later time to
the
body.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I just say that the motion of
Commissioner de Castro would, of course, require the suspension of the
Rules. Secondly, this
is a very important precedent we are setting. So, I would like these things
considered when we vote on this motion. We have many more important
provisions
coming up and if people will reserve their vote constantly, there will be
disorderly procedures. I think the Commissioners have the duty to be
present, and
if they are absent, barring death, that is their misfortune.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, they have a duty to be present and one
of our Members was here doing his duty, but necessity requires that he see
his
physician right away.
THE PRESIDENT: We will go into that after we have already finished the
voting.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
Unicameral
Natividad
Unicameral
Alonto
Bicameral
Nieva
Bicameral
Aquino
Bicameral
Nolledo
Bicameral
Azcuna
Unicameral
Ople
Bicameral
Bacani
Bicameral
Padilla
Bicameral
Bengzon
Bicameral
Quesada
Unicameral
Bennagen
Unicameral
Rama
Bicameral
Bernas
Unicameral
Regalado
Unicameral
Rosario Braid
Bicameral
Reyes de los
Unicameral
Brocka
Unicameral
Rigos
Bicameral
Calderon
Bicameral
Rodrigo
Bicameral
Colayco
Romulo
Bicameral
Concepcion
Unicameral
Rosales
Bicameral
Davide
Unicameral
Sarmiento
Unicameral
Foz
Unicameral
Suarez
Unicameral
Garcia
Unicameral
Sumulong
Bicameral
Gascon
Unicameral
Tadeo
Unicameral
Guingona
Bicameral
Tan
Unicameral
Jamir
Bicameral
Tingson
Bicameral
Laurel
Treas
Unicameral
Lerum
Unicameral
Uka
Bicameral
Maambong
Bicameral
Villacorta
Unicameral
Monsod
Unicameral
Villegas
Bicameral
MR. OPLE: May I know whether the Floor Leader may welcome one brief
argument for a regionally elected Senate and another brief argument for a
nationally
elected Senate. Before we proceed to a vote, may I volunteer to speak for a
nationally elected Senate?
MR. ROMULO: The comments of Commissioner Ople are always welcome.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the floor is open for a brief debate on this particular
point.
Commissioner Ople may proceed.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President, with one speaker for each side.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Gascon?
MR. GASCON: If it is possible, let us be liberal on this matter and not be
limited to one speaker for each side. I know that we are breaking the time
limit
but since it is a very important issue, we should at least be more liberal and
not just limit the discussion to one speaker for each side.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. So, we will welcome as many speakers as there are
available, only that their speeches or their remarks be as brief as possible.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, there should be no interpellations.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, no interpellations.
MR. OPLE: Thank you Madam President.
The Constitutional Commission has just voted in favor of a bicameral
legislature in a voting that was extremely close. I think the reason the
majority
voted for a bicameral legislature was that they thought a House of
Representatives whose members are elected by district could be the most
effective
representatives of all the component districts, provinces and cities of our
country and will guarantee that no specific segment of our population will
ever
be isolated from the concerns of government.
At the same time, they undoubtedly thought that there could be a second
chamber known in the past as the Senate which could balance the more
parochial
interest of representatives elected by districts, with a wider national and
international vision.
I submit that if the Senate is going to be regionally elected, this raison detre
for the existence of an Upper Chamber might actually be nullified. I know
for a fact that many of the political dynasties in this country would rather
have a Senate elected by region because they are fairly assured of election.
They are regionally based dynasties that include a lot of my friends who are
sometimes denigrated as political warlords which is an oversimplification of
the role they exercise in their respective regions. But there will be a premium
on regional bases of strength, on dynasties, on accumulated favors of
decades. On the other hand, a nationally elected Senate freezes the
members of that body from Nero allegiances to the political warlords in their
respective regions. They can be motivated to reciprocate the support of a
whole nation above any region or any segment of the national community, if
only
because they know that they have a mandate from a whole nation, rather
than merely from specific regions.
Moreover, Madam President, under the 1973 Constitution, we had only two
persons voted upon nationally, the President and the Vice-President. Of
course, if
we stuck to just one chamber consisting of a House of Representatives
elected by district, there would still be only two persons voted upon by the
whole
nation, and that would be the President and the Vice-President. No matter
what numerous safeguards we build into the Constitution in order to put
them
under leash, the mere fact that they stand out as the only two persons in the
entire population of 56 million voted by every qualified citizen of the
Philippines would give them a far superior dominant position in the scheme
of government. Whereas, if we have a nationally elected Senate, let us say
there
are 24 of them, this monopoly of a mandate direct from the people, from the
whole nation, would be broken. It is on these grounds, Madam President, that
I
ask that we support a nationally elected Senate, rather than a regionally
elected one.
Thank you.
that we have to elect people at large or nationally because they have to take
that national and international perspective.
I would like to support Commissioner Bennagens position that you do not
have to be elected at large or nationally to have that perspective. We have
seen
through our constant day-to-day struggle for freedom, justice and democracy
that the real factor towards having such an international and national
perspective is the love of the peoples the love for the masses the workers,
the peasants, the urban poor, the fishermen and the youth. So, we must
provide in this bicameral system, in the Senate, an avenue for the local
parties to develop and an avenue for these local parties to compete with
other
parties so that we will not go back to a system monopolized by two parties
that essentially would not have too much contending ideologies.
So, I would like to encourage the group to support; the bicameral form, the
members of which to be elected by region.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Aquino be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Madam President.
I speak for a nationally elected Upper House. The paradox is this: A divided
legislature is essentially the stronger legislature, pitted against the
tentacles of an executive that would want to encroach upon the domains of
the legislature. The executive is effectively foreclosed by the internecine
relationship between an Upper House and a Lower House. If the fear of my
colleagues is that a nationally elected Upper House would only consolidate
the
position of the elite and traditional politics, let me share with you my reading
of the political situation.
It is my firm resolve that the peoples organizations, the cause-oriented
groups, are now in a position politically and logistically to successfully launch
organic leaders who would transcend parochial interests and be able to
capture popular imagination for national leadership. In other words, a
nationally
elected Upper House and the locally elected. regionally elected Lower House
now lead us to an era of new peoples politics.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized.
the Lower House should be elected. The issue was whether the election
should be by province, by city like in the last election, or by district.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee has already recommended the manner of
choosing the Members of the National Assembly. It would be by district. So, I
understand
that that mode of representation by district may be made applicable to the
Lower House. I think the Committee will just reassess that matter.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I believe there is more than just and issue of electing by
province or by legislative district because there is also a proposal that some
of
the representatives be elected on a party list basis. So, it is more than just a
two-cornered decision.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we leave this to the Committee to study and reassess,
and later submit their report?
Yes, the Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, the Committee would like to study those
questions and, therefore, in the meantime, they suggest that we adjourn the
session
until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
MR. SUAREZ: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: The Commission has voted in favor of a bicameral system of
legislature, and we have not discussed the composition of the Senate. But I
was
wondering whether the multiparty theory, which was already espoused on
the National Assembly level, would escalate to the level of the Senate
because as I
understand it, 20 percent of the Members of the National Assembly would
come from the multisectoral organizations or multiparty system. Do I take it
that
the same proportion would apply in the case of the Members of the Senate? I
think that is also a prejudicial question.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Commissioner not believe that that is a matter
that should be studied by the Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, that is why I am passing that on to the Committee for
consideration tomorrow morning.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, Commissioner Bengzon would like to be
recognized before we adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, now that we have finished voting on those
two crucial issues on the report of the Committee on the Legislative, I was
speaking to the Chairman and he said that it would take his Committee one
day to make the necessary adjustments, in accordance with the results of
the
voting we had today. So, the Committee on the Legislative will be off
tomorrow, and I also understand from the Chairman of the Committee on
Accountability
of Public Officers, Commissioner Monsod, that their Committee will have to
make the adjustments likewise because their report was attuned to the
unicameral
assembly. Therefore, I suggest that tomorrow the Committee on the
Executive and I would like to alert Commissioner Sumulong on this be
on deck to make
its report. So, with the approval of this body, we would go into the period of
sponsorship and debate of the committee report of the Committee on the
Executive while we wait for the adjustments to be made by the Committee
on the Legislative and the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Since we have already started with the Committee on the
Legislative, and there are a number of provisions in the report of the
Committee that
do not have to be changed, I was wondering if the Chairman of the Steering
Committee would consider that instead of jumping from one area of concern
to
another, we continue the discussion on the report of the Legislative
Committee, subject. of course, to the approval of our Committee Chairman
and leave the
content and the substance of the report of the Committee on the Legislative
because it may turn out that after they have submitted their amended
report. we will have to amend again and make some adjustments. I think it is
better to
finish the report of the Committee on the Legislative before we start our
discussion of the report of the Committee on the Executive.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is clear enough. Commissioner Bengzon, how
about the Committee on Local Governments? Does the Gentleman think its
report will
be ready for tomorrow?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I spoke to Commissioner Nolledo and he
said that they are still marshalling a lot of their arguments. I am wondering if
the
Committee on Declaration of Principles and State Policies would be ready for
tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Not yet.
MR. BENGZON: Because if the committees on the Legislative, Accountability
of Public Officers, the Executive and Local Governments will not be ready, the
next one on deck is the report of the Committee on Declaration of Principles.
We have Committee Report No. 28.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, the Committee on Declaration of Principles
would not be ready tomorrow because while we have finished half of our
report, we
still have much to amend and change.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 5:51 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:58 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: After discussing with the Chairman of the Committee on the
Legislative, it was agreed that tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning, the
Commission will take up those provisions in the report that are not affected
by the decision of the body taken today.
In the meantime, the Chairman has requested me to also announce that
immediately after adjournment today, the Committee on the Legislative will
meet in
this hall.
On that basis, Madam President. I move for the adjournment of the session
until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the
morning.
It was 5:59 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
R.C.C. NO. 36
Tuesday, July 22, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:43 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Ricardo J. Romulo.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. ROMULO: Dear Lord, we beseech You to grant us the faith to believe that
we can do the task assigned to us; the hope that our people will find our
work
worthy of ratification; and the charity to accept graciously the will of the
majority in our deliberations.
In the silence of our hearts, let us now pray for our own intentions and the
intentions of one another. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present *
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present *
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present *
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present *
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present *
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present *
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present*
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present*
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
a national language for understanding and unity, and saying that bilingual
education concentrates too much of our efforts in learning a language rather
than on instilling in the youth nationalistic values.
(Communication No. 267 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Communication from Mr. Bonifacio M. Lacdoo of 9-A Monserrat St., MBS
Caloocan City, proposing a legislature composed of all provincial governors.
(Communication No. 268 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Legislative.
Letter from Mr. Delfin R. Manlapaz of 1707 E. Rodriguez, Sr. Boulevard,
Cubao, Quezon City, Metro Manila, proposing an amendment to Proposed
Resolution No.
496 (Committee Report No. 24), which would provide for the creation of a
citizen-owned Reservoir of National Credit.
(Communication No. 269 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Communication from Mr. Cesar C. Sanchez of 19 ACSIE Avenue, Severina
Industrial Estate, Km. 16, West Bicutan, Paraaque, Metro Manila, proposing
a
provision that will require elected national officials headed by the President
to come up with an Economic Development Program, embodying a general
plan
based on priorities for implementation within a specific period of time.
(Communication No. 270 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Position paper of the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines,
Inc., in support of Proposed Resolution No. 389, introduced by the Honorable
Ambrosio Padilla, entitled: RESOLUTION PROPOSING A PROVISION
ALLOWING FOREIGN INVESTORS TO ACQUIRE, HOLD OR OWN LOTS WITH
LIMITED AREA REQUIRED FOR THE
OPERATION OF EXPORT-ORIENTED INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES.
(Communication No. 271 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
Letter from Mr. Custodio C. Lauron of Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, suggesting
provisions on citizenship, suffrage, qualifications of local candidates,
retention of death penalty, sessions of Congress from January to November,
fiscal year to coincide with the calendar year, and approval of the budget
before Congress adjourns, among others.
(Communication No. 277 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
An article by the honorable Commissioners Yusup R. Abubakar, Lugum L.
Uka, and Ahmad Domocao Alonto, entitled: VICE-PRESIDENT LAURELS TRIP
TO SPAIN
UNDERSCORES THE ARABIC INFLUENCE IN THE SPANISH LANGUAGE AND
HISTORY Islam is a universal faith: 55 million Moslems coexist with 700
million Buddhists in
China, 30 million Moslems live in friendship with the Russians, 9 percent of
the population in Yugoslavia are Moslems we had religious unity way back
in
1930 but Marcos, pursuing the policy of divide and rule, promoted religious
strife.
(Communication No. 278 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
A detailed list of native folk songs to be taught in the elementary and high
school levels, to be furnished all Members of the Commission for their
favorable consideration, respectfully submitted by the honorable
Commissioners Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Yusup R. Abubakar, Napoleon G. Rama,
Regalado E.
Maambong and Lugum L. Uka who are among the authors of Proposed
Resolution No. 451, for a better understanding of the implementation of
Section 19 thereof.
(Communication No. 279 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 32 on Proposed Resolution No. 533, prepared by the
Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY A PROVISION ON ANCESTRAL LANDS,
sector and party list and also on the reserved powers of initiative and
referendum.
May I premise my question with certain statements. Madam President, I am
not against the idea of election by sector and party list; it is a good idea. But
the problem is the mechanics, how to implement it. From the time this was
suggested by certain groups and certain Members of this Commission, I
already
requested them to submit a plan whereby this idea can be implemented in a
practical way. Up to now, I have not seen nor heard any practical way of
implementing this election by sector and party list.
As to initiative and referendum, I am also in favor of the idea because this is
direct democracy, reserved power of the people to act directly instead of
through elected representatives. But, again, there is the practical difficulty.
Even the UP Law Constitution Project which recommends initiative and
referendum calls attention to this practical difficulty, and I quote:
Practical considerations are also important in viewing initiative and
referendum. If they were extended to the national level, the same practical
difficulties already noted above would obtain. The difficulty, for example, in
obtaining the required number of signatures, as well as the difficulty of
verifying the number and authenticity of the signatures, could hamper the
effective use of these powers by the people.
In another page, that same report of UP states, and I quote:
Like recall, the exercise of these powers, namely, initiative and referendum is
potentially difficult, disruptive and expensive.
But it justifies the inclusion of this in the Constitution by the following
statement, and I quote:
A Constitution is, however, envisioned as a system of first principles
governing the individual and the social relations of people on a political
community
for a long time. In this age of rapid technological advances, it is highly likely
that soon an efficient mechanical and inexpensive device will be
available that would solve the practical difficulties that would at present
attend the exercise of these processes.
Section 2, page 6 provides:
The National Assembly shall be composed of not more than two hundred and
fifty members who shall be elected from legislative districts . . . and those
who,
as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list.
My question is: Is this provision mandatory or merely directory to the
legislature?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee itself has decided to discuss
the effects of this particular provision. So the issue was whether it would be
mandatory or directory, whether it would only be an authority to be granted
to the legislature. What prevailed was that it should only be an authority to
be granted to the legislature, and so we do not qualify it as either directory
or mandatory.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
On page 14, Section 27, lines 20 to 21, reads: The National Assembly shall
provide for a system of initiative and referendum. Is this mandatory or
directory?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee would only say that that is a power or authority
vested upon the legislature in order to implement a desired policy to allow
people power to be institutionalized in the Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, if and when the Members of the legislature think that the
time is right for it.
MR. DAVIDE: That would be the effect, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized to interpellate.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I have at least two questions, if the Committee is
willing to entertain them. I would like to refer to Section 16 of the proposed
resolution on the Article on the National Assembly. It says here, and I quote:
No Member of the National Assembly shall hold any other office or
employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations during his tenure.
My question is: Does this mean that a member of the National Assembly
cannot be appointed to any other office in the government or he can be
appointed but
he forfeits his position in the legislature?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we used the word tenure instead of term.
So, necessarily, if he vacates his office as a Member of the National
Assembly,
resigns or is removed from such office, then he may thereafter be appointed
to any other office provided that such office is not covered by the second
sentence.
MR. FOZ: What I am after is whether this disqualification of holding any other
office in the government is absolute, meaning, that no appointment
whatsoever can be extended to him by the President, or he can be appointed
but he loses or forfeits his membership in the National Assembly.
MR. DAVIDE: In view of the fact, Madam President, that the prohibition
extends to the period during his tenure, it would follow that if a Member
accepts
any position within the period for which he was elected, he should vacate his
position in the National Assembly because that exceeds his tenure.
MR. FOZ: So his acceptance of a position outside the legislature would result
in the loss of his membership in the legislature.
MR. DAVIDE. Yes, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
I have a related question here. The sponsor will recall that in our provisions
on the Civil Service Commission, we have a more or less similar provision
about disability or disqualification. I call attention to Section 4 in our draft on
the Civil Service Commission provision, which reads:
No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any
capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.
Will the sponsor consider that this provision and Section 16 of the proposed
resolution are more or less similar as to the extent and scope of the
disqualification?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President, but if the idea is to delete this because it
is already covered by that particular provision, we believe this should be
retained because it would apply specifically to the Members of the National
Assembly.
MR. FOZ: Will the sponsor not agree that Section 4 of the Civil Service
Commission provision, which uses particularly the phrase in any capacity to
any
public office or position, would be a more-embracing extent or scope than
what is now contained in Section 16 of the resolution?
MR. DAVIDE: The interpretation would be practically the same, because the
prohibition is:
No Member of the National Assembly shall hold any other office or
employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporation during his tenure.
It means the holding in any capacity.
MR. FOZ: What about the term government-owned or controlled
corporations? Does this cover the subsidiaries of these government
corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: That is the intention of the Committee. We prepared this report
before the amendments to the concept of government-owned or controlled
corporation were taken up by the Commission pursuant to the amendment of
Commissioners Romulo and Ople. So at the proper time, probably we could
entertain
any amendment for symmetry.
MR. FOZ: Is the sponsor saying that possibly we should amend this to include
the phrase which was proposed by Commissioner Romulo in the draft on the
Civil
Service Commission provision which reads: including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters?
MR. DAVIDE: That is what I have just said, Madam President. We will entertain
any proposal to achieve symmetry between that provision and Section 16 of
the
proposed resolution.
MR. FOZ: But does the sponsor not think, Madam President, that if we do that
we would delimit the extent of the prohibition, so that Members of the
National Assembly could be appointed and could accept positions in the
subsidiaries of these government corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: I think the amendment of Commissioners Romulo and Ople was
to include the phrase: government-owned or controlled corporations with
original
charters and their subsidiaries. But we could get the true input of that upon
inquiry from Commissioner Romulo.
We would like so seek the assistance of Commissioner Romulo, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Our amendment to the provision on the Civil Service
Commission was restricted to those government-owned or controlled
corporations with
original charters. Therefore, those government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters would continue to fall within the ambit of
the Civil
Service Commission. However, the subsidiaries of those corporations with
original charters would be exempt from the Civil Service.
MR. DAVIDE: From the Civil Service or from the Commission on Audit because
there were two, if I remember correctly?
MR. ROMULO: No, only from the Civil Service.
MR. DAVIDE: From the Civil Service.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Then at the proper time, Madam President, the Committee will
be prepared to entertain amendments to reflect the intention of the
Commission.
MR. FOZ: Would adoption of such an amendment, Madam President, mean
that Members of the National Assembly may be appointed, let us say, to
directorship of
subsidiaries of government-owned or controlled corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: Unless there is an amendment to include their subsidiaries, it
can be interpreted to mean that they may be, but the real intention of the
Committee is not to allow them.
MR. FOZ: In that case, the Committee will not accept any proposed
amendment that would not exclude subsidiaries of these government
corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: That would not exclude them from being appointed to
subsidiaries.
MR. FOZ: In other words, the intention is really to extend the coverage of the
disqualification even to subsidiaries?
MR. DAVIDE: That is our intention, and we will welcome any proposal at the
proper time, Madam President, to amend this section.
MR. FOZ: In that connection, Madam President, the same term governmentowned or controlled corporations during his term of office appears in the
following section, Section 17, in connection with the financial interest of the
Members in any contract or any franchise or special privilege with the
government. Would the same intention of the Committee apply in this case
that the prohibition or disqualification be made applicable even to
subsidiaries
of government-owned or controlled corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: If the subsidiaries have the authority or the power to grant any
franchise or special privilege or to enter into any contract with any other
party, the prohibition will extend to them.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de Castro be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield to a few
questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
I notice that the Committee maintained the Commission on Appointments
consisting of 24 members, as provided for in the 1935 Constitution. In
maintaining
this agency, has the Committee considered the many misfeasance and
nonfeasance of the Commission on Appointments? I will say that
misfeasance and
nonfeasance are still light words to use considering the many misdeeds that
the Commission on Appointments had brought upon the appointees of the
President
for confirmation.
MR. DAVIDE: Commissioner de los Reyes will answer the question.
bicameral
system of legislature. With the restoration of the Senate, we look forward to
a new Congress of the Philippines with more responsible people, with people
who would now consider and take into account people power itself. So,
perhaps, there will be no repetition of what happened in the past.
MR. DE CASTRO: I hope so, and I fully agree with the honorable sponsor that
there must be a check and balance on the appointments made by the
President.
Will the honorable sponsor welcome certain amendments to the Commission
on Appointments at the proper time?
MR. DAVIDE: We will welcome any proposal, Madam President, because we
have not incorporated in this Article the manner of how the Commission on
Appointments shall vote on a given appointment to be confirmed or
otherwise by it.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
For the information of the body, the Commission on Appointments may
the soul of Congressman Crisologo rest in peace had been the subject of
great talk
for two years when one man refused to meet him.
Thank you, Madam President. In due time, we will make the proper
amendments.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will the members of the Committee yield to a few
questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Very gladly, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
In Section 2, we set the number of Members of the National Assembly at not
more than 250. I would like to ask whether this will remain even with the
change
introduced yesterday.
MR. DAVIDE: It will remain unless amended during the period of amendments
because the Senate will be an entirely different House to be composed, as
proposed by the Committee, of 24 Members.
BISHOP BACANI: Suppose the population of the Philippines increases in the
year 2025, does the sponsor not foresee any flexibility in it?
MR. DAVIDE: As provided for here the maximum is 250 Members. Of course,
we have a provision here which states:
Within three years following the return of every census, the National
Assembly shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the
standards
provided in the preceding section.
Of course, if the intention is to provide for a flexibility of the composition
depending on the increase in population, meaning, we maintain the ratio of
population to Representative as in the initial National Assembly, perhaps, we
could add in Section 2 the clause UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THE
NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
BISHOP BACANI: So will the sponsor be amenable to such a change?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee will entertain any amendment on Section 2,
Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, thank you. I would like to be clarified as to the meaning
of sectoral and party list representative. What is embraced within the
scope of these words?
MR. DAVIDE: The main proponent for the sectoral representation is
Commissioner Villacorta and for the party list, Commissioner Monsod. May I
request, Madam
President, that we recognize Commissioner Villacorta to be followed by
Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta will make the necessary
explanation.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, if I understand it right, the Chairman of
the Committee on the Legislative would want me to elaborate on the concept
of
sectoral representation. The idea of giving meaningful representation,
particularly to the farmers and the workers, would be our Commissions
humble
included. Will it be the farmers, teachers, et cetera? What will be the criteria
or
the bases for the creation of recognition of the sectors that will be
represented in the Assembly?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on the matter of the sectoral representation
and the mechanics for the implementation thereof, the Committee had left it
to a
law to implement the same. That is why the provision here reads: and those
who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list.
The
law itself implementing this will provide which sectors to be represented.
BISHOP BACANI: How will we determine these sectors?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, since this is also on the matter of the party
list, may we seek the recognition of Commissioner Monsod for the question
of
Commissioner Bacani?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to make a distinction from the beginning that the proposal for the
party list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral
representation. Precisely, the party list system seeks to avoid the dilemma of
choice of sectors and who constitute the members of the sectors. In making
the proposal on the party list system, we were made aware of the problems
precisely cited by Commissioner Bacani of which sectors will have reserved
seats.
In effect, a sectoral representation in the Assembly would mean that certain
sectors would have reserved seats; that they will choose among themselves
who
would sit in those reserved seats. And then, we have the problem of which
sector because as we will notice in Proclamation No. 9, the sectors cited were
the farmers, fishermen, workers, students, professionals, business, military,
academic, ethnic and other similar groups. So these are the nine sectors that
were identified here as sectoral representatives to be represented in this
Commission. The problem we had in trying to approach sectoral
representation
in the Assembly was whether to stop at these nine sectors or include other
sectors. And we went through the exercise in a caucus of which sector should
be
included which went up to 14 sectors. And as we all know, the longer we
make our enumeration, the more limiting the law become because when we
make an
enumeration we exclude those who are not in the enumeration. Second, we
had the problem of who comprise the farmers. Let us just say the farmers
and the
laborers. These days, there are many citizens who are called hyphenated
citizens. A doctor may be a farmer; a lawyer may also be a farmer. And so,
it is
up to the discretion of the person to say I am a farmer so he would be
included in that sector.
The third problem is that when we go into a reserved seat system of sectoral
representation in the Assembly, we are, in effect, giving some people two
votes and other people one vote. We sought to avoid these problems by
presenting a party list system. Under the party list system, there are no
reserved
seats for sectors. Let us say, laborers and farmers can form a sectoral party
or a sectoral organization that will then register and present candidates of
their party. How do the mechanics go? Essentially, under the party list
system, every voter has two votes, so there is no discrimination. First, he will
vote for the representative of his legislative district. That is one vote. In that
same ballot, he will be asked: What party or organization or coalition
do you wish to be represented in the Assembly? And here will be attached a
list of the parties, organizations or coalitions that have been registered with
the COMELEC and are entitled to be put in that list. This can be a regional
party, a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO, Magsasaka or a regional
party
in Mindanao. One need not be a farmer to say that he wants the farmers
party to be represented in the Assembly. Any citizen can vote for any party.
At the
end of the day, the COMELEC will then tabulate the votes that had been
garnered by each party or each organization one does not have to be a
political
party and register in order to participate as a party and count the votes
and from there derive the percentage of the votes that had been cast in
favor
of a party, organization or coalition.
When such parties register with the COMELEC, we are assuming that 50 of
the 250 seats will be for the party list system. So, we have a limit of 30
percent
of 50. That means that the maximum that any party can get out of these 50
seats is 15. When the parties register they then submit a list of 15 names.
They
have to submit these names because these nominees have to meet the
minimum qualifications of a Member of the National Assembly. At the end of
the day, when
the votes are tabulated, one gets the percentages. Let us say, UNIDO gets 10
percent or 15 percent of the votes; KMU gets 5 percent; a womens party
gets 2
1/2 percent and anybody who has at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote qualifies
and the 50 seats are apportioned among all of these parties who get at least
2
1/2 percent of the vote.
What does that mean? It means that any group or party who has a
constituency of, say, 500,000 nationwide gets a seat in the National
Assembly. What is the
justification for that? When we allocate legislative districts, we are saying
that any district that has 200,000 votes gets a seat. There is no reason why
a group that has a national constituency, even if it is a sectoral or special
interest group, should not have a voice in the National Assembly. It also
means that, let us say, there are three or four labor groups, they all register
as a party or as a group. If each of them gets only one percent or five of
them get one percent, they are not entitled to any representative. So, they
will begin to think that if they really have a common interest, they should
band together, form a coalition and get five percent of the vote and,
therefore, have two seats in the Assembly. Those are the dynamics of a party
list
system.
We feel that this approach gets around the mechanics of sectoral
representation while at the same time making sure that those who really
have a national
constituency or sectoral constituency will get a chance to have a seat in the
National Assembly. These sectors or these groups may not have the
constituency to win a seat on a legislative district basis. They may not be
able to win a seat on a district basis but surely, they will have votes on a
nationwide basis.
The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past elections, we found out
that there were certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes
nationwide; have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were always
third place or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in
the Assembly. But this way, they would have five or six representatives in the
Assembly even if they would not win individually in legislative districts.
So, that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose and objectives of the party
list system.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, am I right in interpreting that when we
speak now of party list system though we refer to sectors, we would be
referring to
sectoral party list rather than sectors and party list?
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, if this body accepts the party list system,
we do not even have to mention sectors because the sectors would be
included
in the party list system. They can be sectoral parties within the party list
system.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
Madam President, I have two more brief questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please proceed.
BISHOP BACANI: In Section 17, lines 22 and 24 read: He shall not intervene
in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit.
It seems the phrase for his pecuniary benefit was not in the 1973
Constitution. Would it be good to revert to the 1973 Constitutions
formulation so that
there will be no need to prove that such intervention was done for pecuniary
benefit because that might be a hard thing to prove?
MR. DAVIDE: At the proper time, Madam President, meaning, during the
period of amendments, the Committee will entertain any proposal.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
And then on Section 18, we speak of the Question Hour for the members of
the Cabinet and their deputies. Is this limited to them? How about heads of
government corporations and other functionaries not related to any specific
ministry? Would they not be also comprised within this?
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposal and traditionally, as a concept in a
parliamentary system of government, the Question Hour is limited only to
the Cabinet
members.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: But the proposal may be taken up during the period of
amendments.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
will retroact to the date of the election. So, the Committee has abandoned
that rule.
MR. DAVIDE: It is not abandoning that rule. This is also taken from the 1973
Constitution. If we allow the proposal, that is, reckoning the age requirement
as of the day of proclamation, it would become uncertain. An individual who
is not really qualified may participate in the election but delay his
proclamation in order to be able to become a Member of the National
Assembly.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to Section 9, subsection 3, on page 8, it is stated
that the National Assembly may punish its Members for disorderly behavior,
and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a
Member. But if the penalty is suspension, this shall not exceed 60 days.
My question is this: May the erring Member or the Member suspended or
expelled appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that his suspension or
expulsion
does not have any legal basis?
MR. DAVIDE: If my recollection is correct, in the case of Senator Osmea, the
Supreme Court considered it as a political question. The Rules provided for
by the Congress of the Philippines on expulsion or suspension of its Members
is within the exclusive prerogative of that body. However, I do not know its
effect in view of the approval by this Commission of the Article on the
Judiciary relating precisely to a definition of judicial power wherein political
questions could no longer be an obstacle to a judicial determination of an
issue.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is precisely with respect to that approved report of the
Committee on the Judiciary that I am asking this question, because it may
turn out
that the Member suspended or expelled belongs to the minority party and by
sheer majority vote of the majority party, he was suspended for reasons that
are
not sufficient for suspension.
MR. DAVIDE: By the clear intendment of the Article on the Judiciary,
specifically on political questions, I believe that that matter may be inquired
into.
In other words, in this particular case, the doctrine of a political question may
no longer be available.
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the sponsor especially if the suspended Member
raises the question of abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
institution
may now be exempt. Only buildings and lands or improvements which are
actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxation. So, for the justification on why we
would now want educational institutions to be exempted from real estate
taxes
with respect to lands, buildings and improvements owned by them but which
are actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, may I
request the recognition of Commissioner Guingona, the main proponent, who
is a member of the Committee, to speak for the Committee?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: I think the honorable Commissioner Nolledo has already
given the justification when he spoke on the importance of education. In
other words,
the concern of the Committee is the benefit that will be derived by the
students from this proviso. Our focus of attention, therefore, is the students
because the assistance that may be given to educational institutions is
expected to redound to the benefit of the students, either in the matter of
reduction of fees or the improvement of the quality of education. As a matter
of fact, that is one of the main concerns of the Subcommittee on Education.
We did not only provide for education; we also included a proviso regarding
the need to ensure quality education in our educational institutions.
MR. NOLLEDO: I extend my thanks to the Chairman and members of the
Committee.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to ask some clarificatory questions, Madam
President.
I would like to raise some questions on Section 16, page 10. Earlier,
Commissioner Foz already asked if this particular limitation to legislators of
holding any office or employment in the government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations during their tenure would also include appointments to board of
held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the National
Assembly or in any committee thereof.
Has the Committee in its deliberations considered some mechanism by
which this particular immunity granted to Members of the National Assembly
shall not be
abused?
MRs DAVIDE: Madam President may I request the recognition of
Commissioner Jamir to answer for the Committee?
MR. JAMIR: Of course, the Committee will be willing to consider such matters
as will prevent the abuse of these privileges granted to them.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, because there is the position that the granting of such
immunity could lead to contempt on the part of legislators who, as
representatives of the people, ought to hold themselves as examples in
respecting rules demanded by an orderly society. As to privilege speech, a
Member
shall not be questioned or be held liable in any other place for a speech or
debate in the National Assembly or any committee thereof. There is the fear
that the broadening of this freedom of speech extended to legislators in the
halls of legislation may be used to abuse officials and private individuals by
making statements that hurt reputations and feelings. So I was wondering if
the Committee has provided for any mechanism like, for example, a
statement on
the waiver of such immunity which would then allow the special committee
of the legislature to discipline a Member who abuses his parliamentary
privileges.
MR. JAMIR: At the proper time, the Committee will be willing to hear and
consider proposals for the amendment of this in order to avoid abuse of
those
privileges. But may we inform the Commissioner that the privilege to the
Members of the legislature has been given in order to prevent their being
harassed
in the performance of their duties. This is way back in the history of the
House of Commons as well as in the United States Congress. This privilege, is
granted in order that the Members of the legislature may perform their
duties without fear of harassment and persecution.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, we do recognize that. On the other hand, we also think of
balancing these privileges which could be exercised to the detriment of other
citizens who have just as much right to be heard or be protected.
The final point for clarification is on page 13, Section 25, subparagraph (3). I
came late when Commissioner Nolledo did talk about line 13 which says that
charitable institutions, churches, etc., performing educational purposes shall
be exempted from taxation. Would this cover schools which will claim that
they are nonprofit? Would such an exemption be granted to institutions
which might claim that they are charitable because they are not raking
profits?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, what is exempted is not the institution itself.
Under lines 28 to 30, those exempted from real estate taxes are lands,
buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for
religious, charitable or educational purposes. So, if that particular nonprofit
educational institution has a land or a building or an improvement actually,
directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, that educational
institution is exempt from the payment of realty taxes on such land, building
and improvement.
MS. QUESADA: So the exemption covers educational institutions which might
claim that they are charitable institutions and would have all these functions
that were mentioned on lines 23 to 25?
MR. DAVIDE: Insofar as charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques and nonprofit cemeteries are
concerned,
they are totally exempt from taxation.
MS. QUESADA: The sponsor has not answered my question: Would charitable
institutions include non-profit educational institutions?
MR. DAVIDE: No, because a nonprofit educational institution is for
educational purposes.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam Presidents I ask that Commissioner Suarez be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
I am sorry that I have to go through the full spectrum of the Article, but may I
start with Section 1. I take it that Section I has to be interpreted with
Section 27. Is my understanding correct, especially as regards the last
sentence?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President. that is correct. The exception there has
reference really to the provision on initiative and referendum which is
specifically
Section 27 of the proposed draft.
MR. SUAREZ: Because the general rule is, the legislative power is vested only
in the National Assembly or in whatever Houses we are going to set up under
the Constitution. And this system of recall and initiative in Section 27 would
constitute the exception to that general rule.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And Section 27 contemplates a situation where the people
themselves would enact legislation.
MR. DAVIDE: Or disapprove or reject legislations.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. To carry it to its logical conclusion, would this
development necessitate a presidential approval as required in the case of a
law enacted by the National Assembly?
MR. DAVIDE: That would depend on the law implementing Section 27,
although the proposals of the principal authors on initiative and referendum
established
already the necessary mechanics for the full implementation of these two
concepts.
MR. SUAREZ: But under Section 27, therein it expressly provides that the
National Assembly shall provide for a system of initiative and referendum. In
other words, the mechanism for instituting the system of, initiative and
referendum is vested in the National Assembly. But the procedure for the
final
approval or veto of whatever may be instituted in pursuance to the system of
initiative and referendum has not been provided under the draft Article.
MR. DAVIDE: We have not, although we believe that under Section 27, the
law itself, which will be enacted by the National Assembly, will provide for
everything in respect to the full implementation of the two concepts.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, the Committee will leave that to the discretion
of the National Assembly, including the exercise of the veto or approval
power
of the President, which is a constitutional precept or principle.
MR. DAVIDE: I think the National Assembly will consider that matter in the
passage of the implementing law.
province shall have at least one representative. So, cities with a population
of more than 200,000 will perhaps be entitled to more than one
representation. In short, under this proposal, a city itself may be districted.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, and I would feel comfortable if the Committee will
avoid gerrymandering for political purposes in setting up these legislative
districts.
MR. DAVIDE: It is the special asset of this Commission that we according to
our conscience. We will not gerrymander anything.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let me go to Section 18, the matter of a possible Question Hour for Members
of the National Assembly to enjoy, as a right, calling upon Cabinet members.
I
take it that we are setting up a presidential system of government. Is my
understanding correct?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, and we felt that the incorporation of this strictly
parliamentary government concept into a presidential form of government
would be very, very helpful and conducive to a further check on the
executive.
MR. SUAREZ: But would it not violate the principle of separation of powers
considering that in a presidential system of government, it is the President
who
is accountable to the electorate and he is not accountable to the National.
Assembly which is an independent political instrumentality?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we respectfully submit that it would not
infringe upon that principle of separation of powers because that principle
would not
insulate one organ of the government from the other. Precisely, it is
correlated with another principle of check and balance.
MR. SUAREZ: So, the sponsor would want to integrate this in a presidential
system of government notwithstanding the fact that it is essentially a
characteristic of a parliamentary system of government.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because while it is a characteristic of the parliamentary
system of government, we do submit that it is essential for the enhancement
and
the strengthening of the doctrine of check and balance.
MR. SUAREZ: That is exactly the most bothersome portion, restoring the
word educational under this particular subsection. But let me clarify only if
this
is the intention of the members of the Committee. When one says for
educational purposes, lands, buildings and improvements are exempted
from the payment
of realty taxes, is that the thrust of this provision?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And as an example, that means practically that the lands and
buildings of the Far Eastern University, the Centro Escolar University, the
University of Santo Tomas, the De La Salle University, the Philippine Womens
University would all be exempt from the payment of realty taxes?
MR. DAVIDE: Subject to the qualifications mentioned. The three qualifications
must be together or simultaneous, not individually. So, before any exemption
can be availed of, it must be shown that the lands, buildings or the
improvements are actually, directly and exclusively used for religious,
charitable or
educational purposes.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let us go to Section 26, subparagraph (2). In the 1973 Constitution, there
were no exceptions; and now, it was included here the exception when a
priest,
preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces, or to any
penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. This is again
substantially a reflection of the 1935 Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: And the 1973 Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: The 1973 Constitution, excuse me. May we know the reasons
for proposing the inclusion of these exceptions?
MR. DAVIDE: The reason is that when a priest, preacher, minister or dignitary
is assigned to the Armed Forces of the Philippines, he is actually serving
the interest of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the army of the people,
or if he is assigned to a penal institution, necessarily, he is performing a
duty which ought to be a duty of the government; so, in short, for a time he
is being divorced from being just an ordinary member of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion.
MR. SUAREZ: The last question is: Why did the Committee qualify orphanage
with government when there are private orphanages that deserve the help
and
assistance of the government?
MR. DAVIDE: May I have that again, Madam President?
MR. SUAREZ: In this proposal, the Committee is qualifying orphanage with
the word government. Is it not a fact that there are private orphanages
which
deserve more aid and assistance than government orphanages?
MR. DAVIDE: That could probably be a subject of an amendment, although
we feel that this particular subsection of Section 26 would refer to public
money or
property.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarifications, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask for the recognition of Commissioner Bengzon.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I suggest that, at this point in time,
we suspend interpellations on the report of the Committee on the Legislative
to be
continued this afternoon.
In the meantime, I move that we vote on Third Reading on the committee
reports on Suffrage, Constitutional Commissions and Bill of Rights.
I so move, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General is requested to ring the bell so that those who may be
in the lounge may come in for the voting.
NOMINAL VOTING
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 468
ON THIRD READING
Yes
Rosario Braid
Yes
Alonto
Yes
Brocka
Yes
Aquino
Yes
Calderon
Azcuna
Castro de
Yes
Bacani
Yes
Colayco
Yes
Bengzon
Yes
Concepcion
Yes
Bennagen
Yes
Davide
Yes
Berna
Yes
Foz
Yes
Garcia
Yes
Guingona
Gascon
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would like to be clarified. During the
deliberations we divided the Article on the Constitutional Commissions into
the
Common Provisions, the Commission on Civil Service, the Commission on
Audit and the Commission on Elections. Are we voting on the entire Article on
constitutional bodies?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, we are voting on Proposed Resolution No.
468. There are three other resolutions on that respect. We have separate
resolutions
for the COMELEC, the Civil Service Commission and the Commission on
Audit. Proposed Resolution No. 468 refers to the Common Provisions and the
Civil
Service Commission.
MR. GUINGONA: I vote yes, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Jamir
Yes
Rigos
Yes
Laurel
Yes
Rodrigo
Yes
Lerum
Yes
Romulo
Yes
Maambong
Yes
Rosales
Monsod
Yes
Sarmiento
Yes
Natividad
Yes
Suarez
Yes
Nieva
Yes
Sumulong
Yes
Nolledo
Yes
Tadeo
Yes
Ople
Yes
Tan
Yes
Padilla
Yes
Tingson
Yes
Muos Palma
Treas
Yes
Quesada
Yes
Uka
Yes
Rama
Yes
Villacorta
Yes
Regalado
Yes
Villegas
Yes
Reyes de los
Yes
Azcuna
Gascon
Calderon
Rosales
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 468
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions
Common Provisions and Civil Service Commission)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 43 votes in favor and none against.
Proposed Resolution No. 468, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we vote on Third Reading on
Proposed Resolution No. 521.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, there are certain errors which cropped up in the
Third Reading copy. They are not exactly for the Committee on Style to
correct.
I think we should correct them before we take a vote on Third Reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Which one?
MR. FOZ: This is a minor correction on page 2, second line of the last
paragraph. The word on should be OR.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other correction?
MR. FOZ: There are more on page 3.
THE PRESIDENT: There is already a corrected copy.
MR. FOZ: Has that already been corrected?
What about on page 3, subsection (10), which reads: Perform such other
functions as may be provided by law? Has that been eliminated? That has
been
transposed to the Common Provisions on the Constitutional Commissions.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the
Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Yes
Natividad
Yes
Alonto
Yes
Nieva
Yes
Aquino
Yes
Nolledo
Yes
Azcuna
Ople
Yes
Bacani
Yes
Padilla
Yes
Bengzon
Yes
Muos Palma
Yes
Bennagen
Yes
Quesada
Yes
Bernas
Yes
Rama
Yes
Rosario Braid
Yes
Regalado
Yes
Brocka
Yes
Reyes de los
Yes
Calderon
Rigos
Yes
Castro de
Yes
Rodrigo
Yes
Colayco
Yes
Romulo
Yes
Concepcion
Yes
Rosales
Davide
Yes
Sarmiento
Yes
Foz
Yes
Suarez
Yes
Garcia
Yes
Sumulong
Yes
Gascon
Tadeo
Yes
Guingona
Yes
Tan
Yes
Jamir
Yes
Tingson
Yes
Laurel
Yes
Treas
Yes
Lerum
Yes
Uka
Yes
Maambong
Yes
Villacorta
Yes
Monsod
Yes
Villegas
Yes
Gascon
Calderon
Rosales
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 521
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions
Commission on Elections)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 44 votes in favor and none against.
Proposed Resolution No. 521, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
NOMINAL VOTING
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 469
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions
Commission on Audit)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution
No. 469.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 469 were distributed on July 18,
1986 pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional
Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 469, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PROVISIONS ON THE COMMISSION ON
AUDIT IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION.
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the
Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Yes
Calderon
Alonto
Yes
Castro de
Yes
Aquino
Yes
Colayco
Yes
Azcuna
Concepcion
Yes
Bacani
Yes
Davide
Bengzon
Yes
Foz
Yes
Bennagen
Yes
Garcia
Yes
Bernas
Yes
Gascon
Rosario Braid
Yes
Guingona
Brocka
Yes
Yes
Rigos
Yes
Laurel
Yes
Rodrigo
Yes
Lerum
Yes
Romulo
Yes
Maambong
Yes
Rosales
Monsod
Yes
Sarmiento
Yes
Natividad
Yes
Suarez
Yes
Nieva
Yes
Sumulong
Yes
Nolledo
Yes
Tadeo
Yes
Ople
Yes
Tan
Yes
Padilla
Yes
Tingson
Yes
Muoz Palma
Yes
Treas
Yes
Quesada
Yes
Uka
Yes
Rama
Yes
Villacorta
Yes
Regalado
Yes
Villegas
Yes
Reyes de los
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those
who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Azcuna
Gascon
Calderon
Rosales
Davide
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 469
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions
Commission on Audit)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 42 votes in favor, none against and one
abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 469, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we vote on Third Reading on
Proposed Resolution No. 486 on the Bill of Rights.
Yes
Bengzon
Alonto
Bennagen
Yes
Aquino
Yes
Bernas
Azcuna
Rosario Braid
Bacani
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Concepcion
Calderon
Davide
Yes
Castro de
Yes
Foz
Yes
Colayco
Yes
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I am voting yes but I would like to explain my
vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz may proceed.
COMMISSIONER FOZ EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. FOZ: In connection with Section 7 of the Article on the Bill of Rights
which states:
The right of the people including those employed in the public and private
sectors to form associations, unions, or societies for purposes not contrary to
law shall not be abridged,
I would like to say that in answer to certain statements here and in the press
expressing fear that with this provision, employees in the public sector are
precluded from engaging in concerted activities, Madam President, this is not
so; that precisely the provision as now worded gives those in the public
sector the right to form unions. This right to organize themselves carries with
it the right to engage in concerted activities. We can make a listing of
these concerted activities that public employees can get involved in, and
among them is the right to strike which is an ultimate weapon of labor, if all
else fail in their negotiations with management.
I should have said this during our voting on Third Reading on the provisions
on the civil service regarding Section I on the scope of the civil service
which reads:
The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and
agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters.
As I have said before, this is a general description of the scope or extent of
what is known as civil service. We made the amendment that with reference
to
government-owned or controlled corporations those with original charters
should be embraced by the civil service. That is all we said. We have never
made
any declaration that those in the civil service or in government-owned or
controlled corporations have no right to organize or to enter into collective
bargaining with their public employers. We were not making any declaration
that they have no right to engage in concerted activities, including the right
to strike.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Garcia
Yes
Laurel
Gascon
Lerum
Yes
Guingona
Yes
Maambong
Jamir
Yes
Yes
Nieva
Yes
Ople
Yes
Nolledo
Yes
Padilla
Yes
Yes
Quesada
COMMISSIONER QUESADA EXPLAINS HER VOTE
MS. QUESADA: I vote yes, but with that understanding clarified by
Commissioner Foz.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Rama
Yes
Rigos
Regalado
Yes
Rodrigo
Reyes de los
Yes
Yes
Yes
Suarez
Rosales
Sumulong
Yes
Sarmiento
Yes
Tadeo
Yes
MR. TADEO: Ang boto ko ay oo, pero gusto ko pong magpaliwanag. Kung ang
kalikasan ng ibon ay lumipad at ang kalikasan ng isda ay lumangoy, ang
kalikasan
naman ng tao ay ang magsama-sama. Ngunit hindi sapat ang pagkakaisa;
inutil ang pagkakaisa kung walang sama-samang pagkilos. Kaya kaisa ako
kay
Commissioner Quesada.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Tan
Yes
Tingson
COMMISSIONER TINGSON EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I joyfully vote yes with the observation that
I am very happy. As far as I am concerned, this Bill of Rights of the new
proposed charter seems to be much better than the provisions that we wrote
in the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Treas
Yes
Uka
COMMISSIONER UKA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. UKA: Madam President, I vote yes, but with the same observation as that
of Commissioners Padilla and Rodrigo regarding Section 20. We speak the
same
language and I think the three of us have mental telepathy. (Laughter)
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villacorta
COMMISSIONER VILLACORTA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam Presidents I vote in favor of the Article on the Bill of
Rights with the under standing that Section 3 is not meant to be a censure
of the legitimacy or detraction from the efficacy of the Presidential
Commission on Good Government as it was liberally interpreted in the press.
I would like to place on record that I am one Commissioner who believes that
the PCGG is a potent instrument for rectifying the abuses of the past
dictatorial regime, and that the PCGG has, in large measure, been acting in
good faith.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villegas
COMMISSIONER VILLEGAS EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. VILLEGAS: I vote yes with the expectation that the reference to the fact
that life starts at conception will be contained in another article. I just
want to put on record that the idea that life starts at conception is not a
sectarian one. As is very well known, one of the leading proponents for the
inclusion of an anti-abortion provision in the Constitution is a non-Catholic,
President Reagan, who said last week that he does not in any way try to
remove a privilege from women even if he is against abortion because he
does not think that women consider murder a privilege.
Thank you.
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those
who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Alonto
Gascon
Azcuna
Rosales
Calderon
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 486
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Bill of Rights)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 43 votes in favor, none against and no
abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 486 on the Bill of Rights, as amended, is approved
on Third Reading.
MR. BENGZON: Finally, Madam President, I move that we vote on Third
Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 530, the Article on Suffrage.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, before we vote on this Article, may I just
indicate for the benefit of the Committee on Style that the third paragraph of
Section 1, which starts with the words The National Assembly, having been
overtaken by the events of yesterday, should be replaced either by the word
LEGISLATURE or CONGRESS as the case may be.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall take note of the correction.
NOMINAL VOTING
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 530
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Suffrage)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution
No. 530.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 530 were distributed on July 21,
1986 pursuant to Section 28 Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional
Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 530, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
SUFFRAGE.
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the
Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Yes
Bennagen
Alonto
Bernas
Yes
Aquino
Yes
Rosario Braid
Azcuna
Brocka
Yes
Bacani
Yes
Calderon
Bengzon
Yes
Castro de
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gascon
Concepcion
Yes
Guingona
Yes
Davide
Yes
Jamir
Yes
Foz
Yes
Laurel
Yes
Garcia
Yes
Lerum
Yes
Maambong
Yes
Nolledo
Yes
Monsod
Yes
Ople
Yes
Natividad
Yes
Padilla
Nieva
Yes
COMMISSIONER PADILLA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I vote yes but I would like to adopt the
observations of Commissioner de Castro on those who are not able to read or
write.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Muoz Palma
Yes
Rama
Quesada
Yes
Yes
Suarez
Yes
Reyes de los
Yes
Sumulong
Yes
Rigos
Yes
Tadeo
Yes
Rodrigo
Yes
Tan
Yes
Romulo
Yes
Tingson
Yes
Rosales
Yes
Treas
Yes
Sarmiento
Yes
COMMISSIONER UKA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. UKA: Madam President, I vote no because I am still waiting for the
mechanism that will make the illiterate prepare their ballots secretly without
the
aid of someone. I am also waiting for the day when they will learn how to
read and write, and that will not take a long time.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villacorta
Yes
Villegas
Yes
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I know how my vote was recorded?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: The Commissioner voted yes.
MR. OPLE: May I explain my vote in a few words?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
COMMISSIONER OPLE EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. OPLE: I think more than 600,000 Filipinos working overseas who are
scattered in 117 countries of the world right now I am referring to Filipinos
on
contract employment will very gladly note the consideration demonstrated
for them by the Constitutional Commission in explicitly acknowledging their
right to exercise suffrage wherever they may be in accordance with one of
the new provisions of the Article on Suffrage.
I am also very glad that the Constitutional Commission was able to prevent
the cruel and unconscionable act of disenfranchising several million Filipinos
who had been denied the opportunity to make themselves literate. I think
that is also a very great service.
Thank you, Madam President.
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those
who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Alonto
Gascon
Azcuna
Rosales
Calderon
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 530
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Suffrage)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 40 votes in favor, 2 against and 1
abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 530, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
THE PRESIDENT: May I just make some announcements.
The Chair previously stated that in Proposed Resolution No. 468, there were
only 43 affirmative votes. My vote was not recorded, but I voted. So, there
should be 44 affirmative votes for Proposed Resolution No. 468.
In Proposed Resolution No. 469, Commissioner Davide approached the Chair
and requested that he be permitted to cast his vote because he was out of
the
room.
Is there any objection to that request? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
request is granted.
May we now ask Commissioner Davide to cast his vote on Proposed
Resolution No. 469, regarding the Commission on Audit.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
My vote on Proposed Resolution No. 469, entitled: RESOLUTION PROVIDING
FOR THE PROVISIONS ON THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT IN THE NEW
CONSTITUTION, is yes.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, before I move for a suspension of session, I
suggest that the Committee on Style organize its committees because there
are
enough materials for them to work on now.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I please inform the body that the
Chairman of the Committee on Style, Commissioner Rodrigo, has already
agreed with me
that we will meet our respective committees early next week.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we suspend the session until
this afternoon at two-thirty to continue the interpellations on the Article on
the
Legislative.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 12:31 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:47 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF C.R. NO. 22
of this report have already been distributed. May 1, therefore, move that this
amended Committee Report No. 22 be formally considered as the draft
Article on the Legislative Department to be the basis of further
interpellations and
amendments and that the same be incorporated into the Record.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none the
motion is approved.
(The following is the whole text of Committee Report No. 22, as amended by
the Committee )
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 22
(AS AMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE)
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.
Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, by the Constitutional Commission in
session assembled to incorporate in the new Constitution, the following
provisions:
Article _____
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be vested in a Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,
except to
the extent reserved to the people by the provision of initiative and
referendum.
SECTION 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall
be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be
provided by law.
SECTION 3. The term of office of Senators shall be four years and shall begin,
unless otherwise provided by law, on the thirtieth day of June next
following their election.
SECTION 4. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five
years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the
Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of
the election.
and
shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine
until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. However, it may be called to session
at any time by the President to consider such subjects or legislation as he
may
designate.
SECTION 11. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of
Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.
Each House shall choose such other officers as each may deem necessary .
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a
smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of
absent. Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House
may provide.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of
all its
Members, suspend or expel a Member, but if the penalty is suspension, this
shall not exceed sixty days.
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time
publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect
national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the
request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal.
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the
consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other
place
than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
SECTION 12. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have
an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each
Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine members. three of whom shall
be
Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the
remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives.
as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and/or sectors represented therein.
The
senior justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
SECTION 13. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of
twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives,
elected by each
House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or
sectors represented therein. The President of the Senate shall be the
Chairman ex officio of the Commission, but shall not vote, except in case of
tie.
SECTION 14. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments
shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of
Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President
and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the
Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of its
members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred
upon it.
SECTION 15. The Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives
shall, unless otherwise provided by law, receive an annual compensation of
_____________ thousand pesos each. No increase in said compensation shall
take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the
Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such increase. Until
otherwise provided by law, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of
the
House of Representatives shall each receive an annual compensation of
________________ thousand pesos.
SECTION 16. The records and books of accounts of Congress shall be open to
the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the
Commission on Audit which shall publish annually the itemized expenditures
for each Member.
SECTION 17. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in
all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be
privileged
from arrest while the Congress is in session; but each House shall surrender
the Member involved to the custody of the law within twenty-four hours after
its adjournment for a recess or for its next session, otherwise such privilege
shall cease upon its failure to do so. A Member shall not be questioned nor
be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or
in any committee thereof.
SECTION 18. No Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives shall
hold any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision,
agency,
or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, during his tenure. Neither shall he be appointed during the
term for
which he was elected to any office which may have been created or the
emoluments thereof increased while he was a Member of Congress.
SECTION 19. No Senator or Member of the House of the Representatives shall
appear as counsel before any court which is not of collegiate composition,
before any court in civil case wherein the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal
case
wherein any officer or employee of the government is accused of an offense
committed in relation to his office, before the Electoral Tribunals, or before
any administrative body. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, interested
financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege
granted by the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, during
his
term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the
government for his pecuniary benefit.
SECTION 20. There shall be a Question Hour at least once a month or as
often as the Rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives may
provide, which
shall be included in the agenda of each House, during which the Members of
the Cabinet and their deputies may be required to appear and answer
questions
and interpellations by Members of each House. Written questions shall be
submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives at least three days before a scheduled Question Hour.
Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover
matters
related thereto. The agenda shall specify the subjects of the Question Hour.
When the security of the State so requires and the President so states in
writing, the Question Hour shall be conducted in executive session.
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of their
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with
its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or
affected by such inquiries shall be respected
SECTION 22. (1) No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
effective unless concurred in by majority of all the Members of the Senate
and of
the House of Representatives.
(2) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of the Members of each House,
shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
SECTION 23. In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may
by law authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to
carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of
the Congress, such power shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
SECTION 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.
SECTION 25. (1) The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days
from the opening of each regular session, as the basis of the general
appropriations bill, a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed
revenue measures, and of expenditures. The form, content, and manner of
preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general
appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular
appropriation therein.
Any such provision enactment shall be limited in its operation to the
appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its
operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly
follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and
agencies.
(4) A special appropriation bill shall specify the purpose for which it is
intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as. certified by
the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal
included therein.
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations;
however, the President, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of
Representative, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may by law be authorized to augment any item
in the
general appropriation, law for their respective offices from giving, in other
items of their respective appropriations.
(6) If, by the end of any fiscal year; the Congress shall have failed to pass the
general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general
appropriation, law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted
and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriation, bill is
passed by the Congress.
SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed
three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form
have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except
when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to
meet
a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no
amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken
immediately
thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a
law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it;
otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the
House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large on its
Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds
of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be
sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of
that
House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall
be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or
against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall act on every bill
passed by the Congress within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof;
otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in
an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the
item or items to which he does not object.
SECTION 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
(2) The Congress may by law authorize the President to fix within specified
limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose,
tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other
duties or imposts.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches, and parsonages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
buildings, and
improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress.
SECTION 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriations made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, paid, or
used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,
church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion or for the
use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other
religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher,
minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be
treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose
for
which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the
balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.
SECTION 30. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.
SECTION 31. The Congress shall provide for a system of initiative and
referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly
propose and
enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the
Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition
therefor signed by at least ten percent of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least
three
percent of the registered voters thereof.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Secretary-General distributed copies of the
amended copy of Committee Report No. 22?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Yes, Madam President.
In the next section, the Question Hour has been less than perfect in the
Batasang Pambansa principally because of the fact that many ministers
would not
try to grace the Question Hour. My query is: Would this preclude the new
Congress or legislature to establish the Privilege Hour?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It will not. The Question Hour is an additional hour given
to Congress. It is an adoption of a parliamentary feature without in any way
foreclosing this Privilege Hour or Privilege Speech.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, it is clear that despite the establishment of the Question
Hour, the new Congress is not being proscribed from establishing the
Privilege Hour?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Unless its rules shall provide otherwise.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Section 25, page 7, refers to the presidential budget, does it
not?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, the presidential budget.
MR. NATIVIDAD: May the Congress increase or decrease the presidential
budget?
MR. DE LOS REYES: There is no prohibition.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is there no prohibition to increase the presidential budget?
The historic practice is that the presidential budget may be decreased but
not
increased. Is it good for the country and for the Congress to increase the
presidential proposal for a budget?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That will be covered by lines 28 and 29 which state: The
form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed
by
law.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, if it is by law, it is by Congress; and if Congress wishes to
increase the presidential budget, it can do so. Is that the concept?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is the necessary consequence.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, we have a situation where the President prepares the
budget every year based on the expected receipts and earnings of the
government.
The Constitution gives the President that duty because the President knows
MR. NATIVIDAD: Since the Floor Leader is already singling me, my last
question is: What is the concept of progressive ratio for the record? What is
the
Gentlemans concept of uniform and progressive ratio? How do we redistrict
the entire Philippines on the basis of uniform and progressive ratio?
MR. DAVIDE: That would be covered by Section 5 of the Article on the
Legislative which says:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
hundred and fifty member who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned
among the provinces and cities in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,
and
those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party
list.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, just the uniform and progressive ratio. For the record,
what does that term or phrase indicate?
MR. DAVIDE: I will consider first the initial composition of the legislative body.
We foresee the possibility of having a ratio of one for every 300,000
inhabitants.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The draft resolution says 200,000.
MR. DAVIDE: We fixed that for a city or a province. Right now, under the 1984
apportionment, cities are classified into component cities and highly
urbanized cities.
A highly urbanized city, as defined under the Local Government Code, is a
city with an income of-not less than P30 million and a population of 150,000.
We sought to increase the requirement as to population to make it a
minimum of 200,000. So, if a particular city will have more, then we also
consider the
progressive ratio of inhabitants.
By the way, we will be submitting to the Commission an ordinance to be
appended to the Constitution on the apportionment of the seats for the
regular
Members of the Assembly. On that particular basis, we have studied the
possibility of only having 198 regular Members for the first House of
Representatives. So, the basis for that is one representative for every
300,000 depending on the compactness, contiguity and adjacence of
territories
consisting of municipalities and cities with less than 200,000 inhabitants
within a given province.
MR. NATIVIDAD: We welcome that because several congresses failed to do
that. We failed to make the redistricting because of controversies. But I think
the
Committees proposal might go through. And what the old Congress failed to
do, we might be able to do by simply adopting a fair, uniform and
progressive
ratio.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask for the recognition of Commissioner Tan.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Madam President and members of the Committee, I refer to Section
31, line 9. How did the Committee arrive at 10 percent, which is a little more
than two million of the registered voters?
MR. DAVIDE: The Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Madam President, will
answer the question.
MR. AZCUNA: The figure of 10 percent was arrived at upon the
recommendation of various proponents of this initiative. The Committee felt
that this is a
reasonable figure, as a minimum, to be required. Otherwise, we feel it would
be too easy to get this initiative referendum. Other states require a bigger
figure such as 20, 15 or 12 percent. We felt that 10 percent is reasonable as
a minimum figure. Yes, that was how we arrived at the 10 percent mainly
on
the basis of the proponents.
SR. TAN: On Section 22, line 6, as a layman, I do not know the difference
between a treaty and an international agreement.
MR. AZCUNA: A treaty is ratified by the legislature. An international
agreement may be an executive agreement, President to President only.
SR. TAN: Yes, but both are mentioned here.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, in other words, we do not want executive agreements to
go unratified. The philosophy here is that henceforth any international
commitments
transferred
to any appropriate article. Considering that we are now discussing what the
legislature can do, we deem it wise and proper to include this in the Article
on the Legislative.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The next question is on Section 7, page 2. I think
Commissioner Nolledo has raised the same point that resident has been
inter- preted
at times as a matter of intention rather than actual residence.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Domicile.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes. So, would the Gentle- man consider at the proper
time to go back to actual residence rather than mere intention to reside?
MR. DE LOS REYES: But we might encounter some difficulty especially
considering that a provision in the Article on Suffrage says that Filipinos
living
abroad may vote as enacted by law. So, we have to stick to the original
concept that it should be by domicile and not physical and actual residence.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: On Sections 6 and 8, does this mean that there will be a
transitory provision to synchronize the election for the House of
Representatives and the Senate?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is contemplated, and we submitted this section
subject to any appropriate amendment so that it will cover synchronization.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: In the Transitory Provisions?
MR. DE LOS REYES: In the Transitory Provisions or even in the Article on the
Legislative.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I be allowed to ask a few questions?
The first is on Section 25, about the budget and general appropriations bill.
During the past administration, we all know that the substantial amount of
the budget was allocated for the military at the expense of other ministries.
May I know if we have sufficient safeguards in this draft resolution to
prevent allocation of substantial amounts to the military or any ministry that
will be favored by the President? I ask this question because I am thinking
of proposing, at the appropriate time, the inclusion of a paragraph for the
wise consideration of the Committee which will read: THE ANNUAL
APPROPRIATION FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE, INCLUDING ALL COMPONENTS OF
THE ARMED FORCES, SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL
ANNUAL BUDGET OF THE
GOVERNMENT EXCEPT WHEN THE PHILIPPINES IS INVOLVED IN A WAR.
What does the Committee say?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, the Committee has not provided for specific safeguards
against gargantuan budgets for the military. We do have a provision that the
budget
be a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures
and of expenditures, but the idea was not to tie the hands of the legislature
and
of the President. Also, there is no specific ceiling. We leave it also to their
wisdom not to overdo it in case of grave abuse of discretion. There is a
remedy, as the Gentleman knows, in the judicial power but there is none
here.
MR. SARMIENTO: But to prevent a repetition of that past national experience,
would the Committee be willing to consider the amendment I stated?
MR. AZCUNA: We feel that we might be overreacting to our previous
experience. We already do have safe guards under the proposed executive
power provision
and regulations on fund transfers and all that. It might be too self-limiting to
put ceilings because if we put a ceiling on the military, somebody will
again want a ceiling on another provision and there will be no end to the
limitations. We might have an executive tied down by too many ceilings and
restrictions and when emergency comes, it will be too late.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask another question? My question is on Section 20
which provides for the Question Hour. Section 20, lines 21 to 23, partially
reads:
. . . during which the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies may be
required to appear and answer questions and interpellations by Members of
each
House.
It appears that members of the Cabinet and their deputies may appear
before Congress only if they are required. What if members of the Cabinet
and their
deputies, upon their own initiative, want to appear before Congress? Would
the Committee consider the inclusion of the phrase UPON THEIR INITIATIVE,
not
only upon the summons served upon them by Congress?
MR. AZCUNA: We will consider such amendments when the time comes.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much.
Then Section 9 of the report reads:
In case a vacancy arises in the Senate or in the House of Representatives
eighteen months or more before a regular election, the Commission on
Elections
shall call a special election . . .
Section 7, line 18, of the first draft includes the phrase to serve the
unexpired term. May I know the reason for the deletion of the words to
serve the
unexpired term ?
MR. AZCUNA: The phrase was omitted by inadvertence and we thank the
Gentleman for calling our attention to it. It should be there. The Committee
would take
note of that to serve the unexpired term.
MR. SARMIENTO: I have one question in connection with Section 7, now
Section 9, about the unexpired term. What if the unexpired term is only less
than one
year? Am I correct in understanding this section that the Commission on
Elections shall still call a special election?
MR. AZCUNA: We do not see how that can arise since it is 18 months before
the regular election and as envisioned, there is no staggered term for the
Senate.
So, that situation cannot arise.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you.
May I proceed to Section 10, lines 9 to 11, which
reads:
contests. If
that answer can be corrected, I will be happy with it: it will make my day.
MR. AZCUNA: If the answer had been made, then it should be corrected. This
does not refer to preproclamation contests.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
My questions will be very basic so we can go as fast as we can. In the case of
the electoral tribunal either of the House or of the Senate, is it correct
to say that these tribunals are constitutional creations? I will distinguish
these with the case of the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan which are
created
by mandate of the Constitution but they are not constitutional creations. Is
that a good distinction?
MR. AZCUNA: That is an excellent statement.
MR. MAAMBONG: Could we, therefore, say that either the Senate Electoral
Tribunal or the House Electoral Tribunal is a constitutional body?
MR. AZCUNA: It is, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: If it is a constitutional body, is it then subject to
constitutional restrictions?
MR. AZCUNA: It would be subject to constitutional restrictions intended for
that body.
MR. MAAMBONG: I see. But I want to find out if the ruling in the case of Vera
vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192, will still be applicable to the present bodies we
are creating since it ruled that the electoral tribunals are not separate
departments of the government. Would that ruling still be valid?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, they are not separate departments because the separate
departments are the legislative, the executive and the judiciary; but they are
constitutional bodies.
MR. MAAMBONG: Although they are not separate departments of
government, I would like to know again if the ruling in Angara vs. Electoral
Commission, 53
Phil. 139, would still be applicable to the present bodies we are deciding on,
when the Supreme Court said that these electoral tribunals are independent
from Congress, devoid of partisan influence or consideration and, therefore,
Congress has no power to regulate proceedings of these electoral tribunals.
MR. AZCUNA: I think that is correct. They are independent although they are
not a separate branch of government.
MR. MAAMBONG: There is a statement that in all parliaments of the world,
the invariable rule is to leave unto themselves the determination of
controversies
with respect to the election and qualifications of their members, and
precisely they have this Committee on Privileges which takes care of this
particular
controversy.
Would the Gentleman say that the creation of electoral tribunals is an
exception to this rule because apparently we have an independent electoral
tribunal?
MR. AZCUNA: To the extent that the electoral tribunals are independent, but
the Gentleman will notice that the wordings say: The Senate and the House
of
Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal. It is still the Senate
Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal. So, technically, it is
the tribunal of the House and tribunal of the Senate although they are
independent.
MR. MAAMBONG: But both of them, as we have agreed on, are independent
from both bodies?
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is the bottom line of my question. How can we say that
these bodies are independent when we still have six politicians sitting in both
tribunals?
MR. AZCUNA: Politicians can be independent, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, when we discussed a portion of this in
the Committee on the Executive, there was a comment by Chief Justice
Concepcion
Commissioner Concepcion that there seems to be some in congruity in
these electoral tribunals, considering that politicians still sit in the tribunals
in
spite of the fact that in the ruling in the case of Sanidad vs. Vera, Senate
Electoral Tribunal Case No. I, they are supposed to act in accordance with law
and justice with complete detachment from all political considerations. That
is why I am asking now for the record how we could achieve such
detachment
when there are six politicians sitting there.
MR. AZCUNA: The same reason that the Gentleman, while chosen on behalf
of the opposition, has, with sterling competence, shown independence in the
proceedings of this Commission. I think we can also trust that the members
of the tribunals will be independent.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that. But just for the information of the
Committee, in the case of presidential and vice-presidential contests,
previously the
traditional tribunal is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. In the committee
report now before the Members of this Commission, we have changed this
concept. We have now decided at least the Committee on the Executive
has decided that presidential and vice-presidential electoral contests will
be
decided by the Supreme Court en banc. So, in effect, we are deviating in the
case of electoral contests involving presidential and vice-presidential
election contests. But as far as the Senate and the House of Representatives
are concerned, we are still sticking to the traditional Senate Electoral
Tribunal and the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives.
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: The next point is that considering the previous Senate
Electoral Tribunal and the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives,
will
the rules they had promulgated still apply to these present electoral bodies?
MR. AZCUNA: I believe they will have to adopt the rules anew if they want to
apply them because these will be different bodies from those of the 1935
version.
MR. MAAMBONG: Another basic question is this: I think we had a discussion
on the disqualification of Senators or Members of the House of
Representatives.
When a Member of the Senate or a Member of the House serves in the
electoral tribunal of either body, would it not be a violation of Section 18
which says
that no Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall hold any
other office or employment in the government? In this formulation of Section
18, I
do not see any exception. I can understand that there are prohibitions of this
nature in other parts of the Constitution, but it specifically provides
except as provided under this Constitution. Will it not violate the section?
MR. AZCUNA: We believe that the two sections should be construed together
in line with established principles of statutory and constitutional
But I understand that there will be corresponding proposals later during the
period of amendments that even if the city may be entitled to two or more,
their representatives shall have to be voted at large, considering a small
territory of the city even if the population would be several hundreds or
thousands.
MR. MAAMBONG: To clarify that, in the case of the province, it is an inflexible
rule that we should group together municipalities to form one district
based on population. But in the city, it may not be divided into legislative
districts; voting may be at large.
MR. DAVIDE: No, if no amendment is presented to the body and the proposal
is not altered, there is no different rule for the city. There will be a
districting also of the city itself.
MR. MAAMBONG: I see. May I know in advance what is the thinking of the
Committee on that proposed amendment or has the Gentleman not yet
formed any opinion
on this?
MR. DAVIDE: We have not formulated any on that matter because it was not
yet formally presented.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, I will not press the question.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Brocka be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you, Madam President.
Section 28, paragraph (3) on page 10 states:
Charitable institutions, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant
thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
Just for some clarifications: I can understand that charitable institutions are
exempted from taxes because of their nonprofit nature and because of the
explanation given by Commissioner Azcuna although I agree with Sister
Tan that I do not think they should be exempted because some of these
churches are
very rich, particularly the Catholic Church and the Iglesia ni Kristo. But that is
to close. And once these private institutions close, the ones who will suffer
will be the students, because the so-called nonprofit, nonstock educational
institutions will not have the facilities to admit the students who will lose
their opportunity to be admitted.
MR. BROCKA: As far as that is concerned, I think that is a bit questionable
and debatable. I asked that particular question mainly because, let us face it,
some educational institutions are very rich, and I do not think they should be
exempted from paying taxes.
MR. GUINGONA: If by rich the Gentleman means the facilities, I can say
that the so-called nonprofit, nonstock corporations have even more
impressive
facilities.
MR. BROCKA: If that is the case then, I do not think we should make any
qualification, whether they are nonstock, profit or nonprofit. By all means, all
educational institutions should not be exempted from paying taxes.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, but what I am saying is, it is the students who will suffer
in the long run. Until the State is able to provide the education that the
students want and deserve to obtain, I think the private educational
institutions should be supported. Once the State is in a position to provide
quality
education all by itself through its own funds, then there is no problem.
MR. BROCKA: I do not think I can agree with the t Gentleman on that point,
Madam President. Anyway, I mentioned that because I would like to make an
amendment later when the time comes.
The next question that I would like to ask is on page 11, line 9 of Section 31
which says:
. . . signed by at least ten percent of the total number of registered voters, of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three
percent of the registered voters thereof.
Does this refer to registered voters who actually voted, or voters who are just
registered?
MR. AZCUNA: It refers to the total number of registered voters, whether they
voted or not.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
MR. RAMA: I would like to ask the Chair to recognize Commissioner Ople.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Vice-Chairman of the Committee will
answer for the Committee.
MR. OPLE: Will the sponsors yield to two or three questions?
MR. AZCUNA: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
Sections 18 and 19 of the proposed Article deal with conflict of interests. I
think this is a good attempt between the two sections to hold the Members
of
the legislature accountable for the integrity of their commitment to the
public interest so that conflict of interests can be prevented or avoided.
However, I wanted to ask the Committee whether they had thought of
adding to the set of safeguards a requirement for full disclosure of the
financial and
business interests and in the case of professionals, the history of their
professional affiliations and associations in the past. So that when these
financial business and professional interests are disclosed, the public will
have a way of knowing whether they had used their offices in the Congress
and
demanded of the people to aggrandize their own interest. And, perhaps, in
the rules of either House, they can provide for certain additional disclosures
that may involve conflict of interests which can be placed under the purview
of the disciplinary action of the House. Will the Committee, at the proper
time, consider such a provision for full disclosure of the financial and
business and professional interests of Members of both Houses of Congress,
so that
this may provide the public and the Houses themselves with the basis for
determining whether in the initiation of bills or in the voting on the same,
conflict of interests had occurred or taken place?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, the Committee will be happy to consider
such an amendment at the proper time.
MR. OPLE: May I also know whether these conflict of interest provisions in
Sections 18 and 19 are understood to apply to the future sectoral
representative
and those who will become Members of the Congress through party list?
MR. AZCUNA: The intention, Madam President, is to apply to all Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives, regardless of whether they
represent
sector or were elected through the party list system or the ordinary system.
There should be no difference as far as these accountability provisions are
concerned.
MR. OPLE: Having in mind potential conflict of interests in the case of
sectoral representatives who are heads of their own organizations let us
say, a
labor organization, a farmers organization, a womens organization or a
veterans organization in the contemplation of the Committee, will they
have to
resign to be in full conformity with Sections 18 and 19 and a full disclosure
policy? Will they have to resign as heads o their respective organization,
because otherwise, there will be a commingling of their identities as heads o
such organizations with interest to pursue, especially in government and as
representatives of the people owing allegiance only to the people in the
House of Representatives, for example?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, we do not envision a general rule of
resignation because prohibited interest here are very specific. They refer to
contracts o
franchises or special privileges actually granted by the government, or a
matter actually pending before and office or government wherein the
member may
act for his pecuniary benefit. So being merely a representative of the sector
does not necessarily mean that there will be conflict of interests. It will
have to be judged on a case-to-case basis.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
I suppose that if they are lawyers, let us say, practicing in the Ministry of
Labor and in the agrarian courts, they will be subject to the same restraints
in Sections 18 and 19 as the other regularly elected Members of the House of
Representatives.
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
I have another question concerning Section 22 on treaties and international
agreements. May I know why the Committee would involve both the Senate
and the
House of Representatives in the ratification of a treaty or an international
agreement; whereas under the previous Constitutions prevailing until the
1973
Constitution and in accordance with the practice worldwide, it is the Senate
that ratifies treaties?
MR. AZCUNA: The Committee will be happy to entertain any proposal to
amend this portion. But the reason for the inclusion of the House of
Representatives
in the concurrence on treaties is that the Committee believes that the House
of Representatives represents the districts directly, the more populous
representation of the people. We believe in institutionalizing people power,
that treaties should be submitted to the representatives of the people,
especially because these treaties may concern sovereignty and sovereign
rights. But that will be open to amendments.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much for indicating openness on this matter.
I always thought that the Senate and the House enjoy a kind of symmetry of
exclusive powers. Appropriations bills may originate only in the House but by
tradition, the Senate is the treaty-ratifying Chamber. Is it correct to say that
according to Section 22, even executive agreements will have to be passed
upon by the legislature?
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct.
MR. OPLE: An executive agreement may take the form of, let us say, the
military bases agreement which is, from the standpoint of the United States,
a mere
executive agreement, but from the standpoint of the Philippines, a treaty
fully ratified by the Senate of the Philippines with the binding force and effect
of law on the Philippines. Would that be an example of an executive
agreement?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Since Section 22 provides that even such agreements should be
subject to ratification by Congress, will this not lead to a repetition of the
ignominious situation of 1947 where the Philippines ratified a bases treaty?
And on the other hand, the United States refused even to submit this
agreement
to the American Senate for ratification. So that, in effect, we have an
asymmetry of indignity as I had occasion to refer to it earlier.
Considering that there are many countries in the world, presumably including
the foremost trading partners of the Philippines like Europe and Japan, which
by law and tradition do not submit their executive agreements to their
parliaments or legislature for ratification, would there not be a kind of
asymmetry
again and a certain auditing, not counting the concrete disadvantages for
this country? And executive agreement, let us say, with the Western
European
community is submitted to our Senate for ratification and is given the dignity
and force and effect of a complete treaty, while this is viewed, let us say,
in Brussels as just one in a series of routine and perfunctory agreements
they arrived at with other countries. Is that not a possibility?
MR. AZCUNA: It is a possibility, and we will be happy to welcome
suggestions, whether by way of requiring reciprocity or some other way to
avoid such
disparity.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
My last question will have to do with Section 28. This is about taxes and
exemption from taxes such as in the case of religious, charitable and
educational
institutions, but my concern really is about the uniform standard of taxation.
Elsewhere in the Constitutional Commission, especially in the Committee on
Local Governments and, perhaps, in other committees as well, is a strong
trend for decentralization or the grant of autonomy to regions and to specific
cultural communities. Part of such grant is the power of taxation. But I do
recall in the past and the lawyers know better about this, there were the
recent cases in the Supreme Court. Was there not such a case in Ormoc City
where the city government decided to exercise its autonomous power of
taxation
and then it was brought to the Supreme Court? I think they lost the case on a
technicality. They were not violating a uniform tax standard required by the
Constitution. They just forgot to speak in the plural of all the sugar centrals
there, instead of designating by name for purposes of taxation, the only
sugar mill in Ormoc City.
In order to prevent further disputes of this nature, and in order to align
Section 28 with the requirements of local autonomy, including the power of
taxation at the local level, would the Committee consider at the proper time
an amendment that would explicitly recognize the taxation power of local
municipalities as part of a grant of autonomy, without having to violate the
constitutional uniform taxation standard?
MR. AZCUNA: The Committee will, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
and would avoid monopoly of one, or dominance of one political party. Is that
correct?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, because under the traditional method of voting, for
example, we vote for the Senate at large, a party that gets 51 percent of the
votes
gets all the 24 seats.
MR. GASCON: Winner-take-all.
MR. AZCUNA: It is a winner-take-all. So, the 49 percent of the voters do not
get any seat at all, whereas in a proportional representation, one version of
which is the party list method, if a party gets or a group gets 10 percent of
the votes, then they get 10 percent of the 24 seats.
MR. GASCON: They are entitled to 10 percent of the 24 seats?
MR. AZCUNA: They are entitled to 10 percent which, of course, is a fraction
2.4 but there will have to be mechanics on how to allocate fractions.
MR. GASCON: Does the Gentleman think it is easier to implement on that
level?
MR. AZCUNA: It is normally easier to implement the party list or proportional
representation system where there is a multiple representation of a single
constituency.
MR. GASCON: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President. I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized
to ask one forgotten question, as he stated.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just wanted to make a comment on the question of
Commissioner Gascon. Actually, in the Senate we do not need to apply the
party list system
because it is already nationwide and from a political tacticians point of view,
there are ways to get the proportional representation. For a sectoral
group, there are 24 seats available, then get the sector to just vote for one;
that is a negative for the 23.
MR. GASCON: Let us concentrate on that issue on proportional
representation. If it does not have to be a party list system so long as I shall
see the
Senate representation based on a proportionate number of votes cast for
that particular candidate, then I can be assured that even a minority of five
or 10
percent who voted for this particular candidate would be represented in the
Senate. This would be very helpful in establishing democracy.
MR. MONSOD: Actually, for the 24 Senators, a four-percent or five-percent
vote gets only one seat.
MR. GASCON: Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, with regard to Section 22, I just want to
clarify something on international agreement. Would the Committee include
there the
restructuring agreement on our external debt with the consortium of banks?
MR. AZCUNA: If it is a government-to-government agreement, Madam
President, it would be included but not private bank-to-bank agreement.
MR. MONSOD: There could be financial institutions within the consortium
which are government agencies.
MR. AZCUNA: For instance, .
MR. MONSOD: EXIM Bank.
MR. AZCUNA: if it is with the IMF or EXIM Bank, these are not international
subjects under international law. These would not be covered. We are
referring here to agreements between subjects of international law.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized to ask some questions
of Commissioner Monsod?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
We are still on the subject of sectoral representation. There are two
provisions which may be affected by this percentaging one of them is with
respect
to the creation of the Commission on Appointments. This is affected by
proportional representation, specially as it affects the multisectoral
representation. We are operating on a 20-percent basis and, as proposed,
there are 24 members in the Commission on Appointments. There is a
provision
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Madam President, to enable the Members to hold a caucus, I
move for adjournment until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the
morning. Let us all proceed to South Caucus Rooms A and B for our caucus.
It was 5:42 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
R.C.C. NO. 37
Wednesday, July 23, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:49 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Jose B. Laurel, Jr.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. LAUREL: Almighty God, even as the eagle flies at will in the infinite
reaches of the skies, so let our vision soar untrammeled as we seek that
radiant
future we hope to ensure for our people in the Constitution we are writing.
Let it be a future where all persons are born free, relishing their rights but
always with deference to the rights of others and recognizing authority only
Present *
Natividad
Present
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present *
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present *
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present *
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present *
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present *
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present *
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications, the President
making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Antonio A. dela Cruz, Captain, PA (Ret.), President, AFP, CDD,
PERS Assn., Inc. addressed to the Honorable Teodulo Natividad, submitting
some proposals for the upliftment of the disabled soldiers.
(Communication No. 280 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice. Letter from Mr. Nicanor B. Petalino of
Concepcion, Batangas City, proposing the presidential form of government
with a
unicameral legislature, a change in the organizational setup of the barangay
to a cooperative type to promote unity and cooperation and suggesting
qualifications of candidates for the barangay council.
(Communication No. 281 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Blas S. Flores of Ilwas, Subic, Zambales, suggesting that
former KBL officials be disqualified to run for public office in the forthcoming
elections for two consecutive terms, and should the U.S. military bases be
retained, American personnel, civilian or military, be required to dress
properly when going off-base.
(Communication No. 282 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Communication from the Alliance for Philippine Concerns, signed by Mr. Jorge
A Emmanuel, Executive Secretary, and endorsed by the National
Organization
Against Nuclear Power and Weapons, submitting a proposal for a non-nuclear
provision in the Philippine Constitution.
(Communication No. 283 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
advantage over the other party. That is one reason. Second, because of the
same prestige, there is always the fear and suspicion on the part of the
public
that they can easily influence the mind of the members of the court in
framing their decisions.
We have decided in this Commission, especially in the Committee on the
Judiciary, to frame a Constitution that will not only establish a system
whereby the
judiciary can really become independent from any pressure, but also will
correct the impression among the people that it is subject to outside
influence
and to pressure from the government as well as from interested parties.
One of the most common complaints of lawyers appearing in court is that the
appearance of a Member of the legislature constitutes an unfair advantage.
It
is, therefore. for these reasons that I propose that the first line of Section 19
read as follows: No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
MAY appear as counsel before any court.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the proposed amendment would, therefore,
affect the succeeding lines where appearance would be allowed except in the
cases
therein provided. The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the proposal
for the following reasons: First, insofar as influence by a Senator or a Member
of the House of Representatives is concerned, the same can no longer obtain
because firstly, under the proposed Article on the Judiciary, which was
already
approved on Third Reading, appointments to the judiciary will no longer be
subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Besides,
appointments
to the judiciary will be initiated by the Judicial and Bar Council which will be
responsible for submitting a list of at least three for any vacancy. So,
no Senator or Member of the House of Representatives can unduly influence
appointments to the judiciary. Secondly, we would be discouraging
competent,
highly qualified and capable lawyers to run for the position of Senator or
Member of the Lower House. In short, we will be depriving both Houses of
talents
coming from the legal profession: lawmaking would really require talents
from the legal profession.
And finally, the appearance here is limited only to courts of collegiate
composition. Necessarily, these courts would mean a court with more than
two
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I would like to support the amendment. May
I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, since I am practicing law, I do not want to
be accused of trying to eliminate competition. But I do have the following
observations. The Chairman of the Committee is correct when he said that
we have insulated the judiciary from the more pernicious forms of political
interference in the Article on the Judiciary, but the legislature still holds the
power of the purse. So, that is one factor to consider. Secondly, the old
Congress had such a bad image with regard to influence peddling. We would
rather that they be paid a good salary and once they are elected, devote
themselves to lawmaking and forget about court appearances. In any case,
they would not be disqualified from being legal consultants. It is only court
appearances that we wish to eliminate above all else in order to improve
their image before the public because we must restore confidence in
government. We
have had the so-called revolution. It is time to change our habits. It is time
for public servants to lead by example and to truly make sacrifices. I
think, if we give them the right salary, it will not discourage good lawyers
from running for public office. And finally, those of us who do practice, I
think, support Commissioner Colayco. When one appears against a Senator,
the latter has an advantage. That cannot be denied.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee would like to reply. In the
matter of promotion which was taken up by Commissioner Colayco, the
umbilical cord
of influence by the Members of Congress had been totally cut off by the
approval of the Article on the Judiciary. All appointments to the judiciary will
pass through the Judicial and Bar Council composed of seven members
headed by the Chief Justice as ex officio chairman, a representative from the
National
Assembly and the Minister of Justice as ex officio members, and a nominee
from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, a law professor, a representative
from the private sector and a retired Justice. They will submit a list of at least
three for every vacancy. The President is to appoint only one from the
three recommended and, therefore, the influence exerted by any Senator or
Member would be all sound and theory. Secondly, the National Assembly
would still
hold the purse for appropriations. The Article on the Judiciary already grants
the judiciary fiscal autonomy and releases are to be regularly and
automatically made. And so, we cannot perceive an undue influence or
pressure by the use of the appropriations authority of the legislature.
would be
the equivalent of the same prestige that the lawyer enjoys. Does not the
Commissioner think so?
MR. PADILLA: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I thank the Commissioner, thank you, Madam President.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: May I ask one question of Honorable Padilla please?
MR. PADILLA: Gladly.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, anyone should be satisfied by the fact that
he has been elected to the prestigious office in the Senate, with its honor,
high
dignity and bright future. So, acceding to the amendment that he bar himself
from the practice of law at least while he is a Senator, would that not be a
reasonable request?
MR. PADILLA: To be elected by the people, especially on a nationwide basis,
in the Senate is indeed a gift from the people and a significant privilege and
a distinct honor. But under the 1935 Constitution, the compensation of
Senators was only P600 a month which was later increased to, I think, less
than
P2,000. Of course, a Member of the Congress was allotted sums appropriated
for his staff and sometimes was given the so-called pork barrel privilege
which
was never reasonably accomplished. In other words, that so-called pork
barrel was an allocation of certain public funds for some public projects all
over
the country in accordance with suggestions but, as I have mentioned in my
first speech, we might say here, the situation has always been that there
have
been so many appropriations and less actual collections that the allocations
by Congress in the budget were never implemented by the President, and it
required the Members of Congress, the Congressmen especially, to request
the President to give priority to their respective pork barrel allocations. That
made the Member of Congress dependent on the President. That is why I
suggested that we eliminate this former practice, or at least the future
Congress
should eliminate the practice of over appropriating public funds when they
are not available. The colatilla or excuse is subject to availability of
funds. But the funds are never available and, therefore, those suggestions
or projects supported or encouraged or insinuated by the Members of
Congress
were never accomplished except at the discretion of the President who had
more control over Congress.
MR. TINGSON: A Senator should be satisfied with the honor and the privilege
of serving in that very high category of membership in the Senate.
MR. PADILLA: That is correct. I think that is a great honor, short only of being
president or vice-president because they are elected nationwide. But a
legislator cannot support his family and the education of his children with
only a privilege or honor. If a Member of Congress has always been in the
practice of law and that is his legitimate means of livelihood, as well as the
source of legitimate income to give his family and his children the proper
support and education, why should he be barred from the exercise of that
profession, especially when the electorate knew that prior to his election and
before he entered the field of politics and subjected himself to popular
election, he has been a practicing lawyer and that the exercise of his
profession
is his legitimate means of income?
MR. TINGSON: Finally, could the Commissioner please comment on the
observation that the Senate is Supposed to be composed of members who
have already come
of age, so to speak, and in a sense they have already succeeded financially
in life, for it is a fact that one cannot be elected to that body unless
somehow he is already above average, financially speaking? I understand
that when one becomes a Senator, all kinds of organizations and business
managerial or directorship positions are given to him. Are those not enough?
MR. PADILLA: The latter portion of the statement would entail more expenses
than income and I disagree with the common impression that one cannot be
elected senator unless he is wealthy or he is rich. In fact, in the 1957
election, the light remark of some observers was that Rogelio de la Rosa was
elected because he was a movie star; and that Ambrosio Padilla was also
elected because he was a basketball star. And we were the only two among
the eight
good candidates of the Liberal Party to the Senate who survived. In the
previous elections, as a matter of political history in the 1951, 1953 and
1955
elections, the Nacionalista Party succeeded in having its eight senatorial
candidates win in said three successive national elections. As I said before,
no
Liberal candidate, who counted among the candidates who were very
prominent, illustrious and competent, was elected. I do not know why;
maybe temporary
prejudice or some criticism against the Liberal Party then. But one cannot
win a nationwide election only with money. In fact, many candidates have
won
despite the lack of money. That is a historical fact.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: I would like to say a few words before submitting my
proposals to the body for a vote. I am one of the many persons who have a
very high
respect for Commissioner Padilla. I am afraid I did not know that my proposal
will be so unpopular especially with the lawyers who are Members of the
legislature. As I said, the main thrust of my proposal is to avoid any
unintended pressure which a Member of the legislature, probably without
even any
intention to do so, exerts on the judiciary, because everybody knows that he
is influential. Everybody knows that he has a clout in many matters.
Commissioner Padilla said that he is more against the practice of behind-thescene pressures. This admission I think bolsters my main premise that there
is
always the threat, the danger that Members of the legislature may be
tempted to pressure justices of the collegiate courts in the formulation of
their
decisions. We require the members of our Cabinet to divest themselves of
any connection or ownership in businesses Connected with or which may be
influenced by the portfolio which they accept. And this is a rule in all
government offices. Public office carries with it inhibitions. In the case,
therefore, of Members of the legislature who happen to be lawyers, they
have to choose, but they cannot have both, in the interest of the public.
Members
of the legislature are not popularly known to be receiving low salaries.
Certainly, the occupation is not known to be impecunious. So, the fear that
by
depriving themselves of the practice of law when they become Members of
the legislature is not as real as it is intended to be shown. And besides, no
one
is forced to run for Congress; so, if this prohibition is approved, we do not
have to have lawyers in the legislature, and if they want to run for it, then
they know that they cannot make use of any influence of their profession.
With this reply, I would like to ask that the proposal be submitted to a vote. I
would like to read my proposal, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. COLAYCO: The amendment is on Section 19, page 6, lines 2 to 4. I would
like to clarify that my proposal covers only the personal appearance of the
Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate.
THE PRESIDENT: So, how would the proposed amendment be?
MR. COLAYCO: It will read: No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives MAY PERSONALLY appear as counsel before any court OF
JUSTICE. With this
prohibition, the subsequent lines will be covered already.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, lines 4 to 17 will be covered?
MR. COLAYCO: Up to line 10.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote?
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Colayco, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 25 votes in favor and 10 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: The next proponent of an amendment is Commissioner
Regalado. Before I call on him, may I just make an announcement. I have so
far 16 Members
listed for amendments, and I propose that instead of going through this
rigmarole of anterior amendments, when the Commissioner stands up to
make an
amendment, let him complete all of the amendments that he wants to make.
Would the House favor that? I see that they are shaking their heads to
indicate
yes.
So, may I ask that Commissioner Regalado be recognized, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
My first proposed amendment is addressed to the Chairman and members of
the Committee. It is on Section 19, particularly the last sentence thereof,
lines
15 to 17, which provides:
He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for
his pecuniary benefit.
I notice that this was taken from the 1973 Constitution. Yesterday, I took note
of the comments of Commissioner Quesada regarding the possibility where a
legislator-lawyer may be retained by a multinational firm and the element of
pecuniary benefit there may be hard to prove and yet this same
lawyer-legislator, to favor his retainer, may introduce bills in the Congress for
the purpose. So, by way of an amendment by addition, I propose to have
the following phrase added after benefit: OR WHERE HE MAY BE CALLED
UPON TO ACT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OFFICE. This is also the exact wording in
the 1935
Constitution, so much so that the entire sentence, with the proposed
amendment, shall read: He shall not intervene in any matter before any
office of the
government for his pecuniary benefit OR WHERE HE MAY BE CALLED UPON
TO ACT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OFFICE.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee happily accepts the proposed
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Regalado read the proposed amendment
again?
MR. REGALADO: OR WHERE HE MAY BE CALLED UPON TO ACT ON ACCOUNT
OF HIS OFFICE. I am using the constitutional provision in the 1935
Constitution for this
purpose.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President. may I be recognized for only one clarificatory
question?
deletion of that phrase. The Committee members said that they were willing
to consider that amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: That can be introduced as an amendment to the amendment,
Madam President, but it was not touched by the amendment of
Commissioner Regalado. He
only added a clause.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. So, at the proper times that can be reintroduced or can
it be introduced now?
MR. REGALADO: I still have some other amendments. As stated by the Floor
Leader, one proponent of amendments can state all of his proposed
amendments on
one occasion.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we now ready to vote?
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment?
MR. ROMULO: They want the amendment to be read again.
MR. DAVIDE: May we request Commissioner Regalado to read again the
amendment for the benefit of the Commissioners?
MR. REGALADO: The last sentence of Section 19, appearing on lines 15, 16
and 17, will now read: He shall not intervene in any matter before any office
of
the government for his pecuniary benefit OR WHERE HE MAY BE CALLED
UPON TO ACT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OFFICE.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask Commissioner Regalado to read that again
because the sentence seems awkward at present?
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Regalado please read again.
MR. REGALADO: He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of
the government for his pecuniary benefit OR WHERE HE MAY BE CALLED
UPON TO ACT ON
ACCOUNT OF HIS OFFICE.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, after the explanation and taking into account
a recognition of the right or authority of the National Assembly to apportion
the jurisdiction of the different courts which by the way was also deleted
from the Article on the Judiciary because it is an inherent power, and
realizing
that there is really a need to restrict the authority of the National Assembly
to increase the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Committee
accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: We now have two proposed amendments, to delete and
have a new Section 22.
MR. REGALADO: The original Section 22 was deleted and transposed. Section
22 will read: NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED INCREASING THE APPELLATE
JURISDICTION OF THE
SUPREME COURT AS PROVIDED IN THIS CONSTITUTION WITHOUT ITS ADVICE
AND CONCURRENCE.
MR. DAVIDE: ITS would mean the Supreme Court.
MR. REGALADO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Regalado which is a new provision of Section 22 and which
has been
accepted by the Committee on the Legislative?
MR. RODRIGO: May I just ask one question, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: The prohibition is only against increasing; how about
decreasing?
MR. REGALADO: Under the provisions of the Article on the Judiciary, since
that jurisdiction is granted to the Supreme Court by constitutional fiat, to
decrease that on the part of the legislature would be unconstitutional.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the legislature does not have the power anyway to
decrease.
MR. REGALADO: It cannot decrease because it is a constitutional conferment.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the concern of the two amendments is only about
increasing.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President I would like to pose an inquiry to
Commissioner Regalado.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO: What will happen now to the present laws authorizing appeal
to the Supreme Court, like the Labor Code on decisions of the NLRC, P.D. No.
902A
on jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of the Securities and
Exchange Commission? Do we understand it right that these laws shall exist
until
repealed?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, since this constitutional provision would not be selfexecuting, there must, of course, be an enabling law repealing Batas
Pambansa Blg.
129 with respect to appeals from the NLRC and the CBAA.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other manifestation?
Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: I would like to suggest something, Madam President.
Under the Article on the Judiciary, Section 2, the Commission approved this
provision: The National Assembly shall have the power to define, prescribe
and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts, but may not deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 7 hereof.
I feel that the proposed new section under the Article on the Legislative
would fit here better than the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Regalado.
MR. REGALADO: Unfortunately, the Article on the Judiciary was already
approved on Third Reading.
Madam President, I have been asked by the Floor Leader to read this
amendment all over again, which will now be Section 22.
It is possible that there are members of the Cabinet and their deputies who,
imbued with a deep sense of patriotism and public service, want to appear
before Congress without waiting to appear and answer questions and
interpellations. So, that is why I proposed this amendment by addition. Is the
Committee
willing to accommodate my humble suggestion?
MR. DAVIDE: Before accommodating the proposed amendment,
Commissioner Aquino would like to ask some clarificatory questions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Gladly.
MS. AQUINO: What are the conditions why the Commissioner suggested the
phrase UPON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE? Will this be unqualified except their
own
voluntariness to participate?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: Does not the Commissioner anticipate the possibility of Cabinet
members or their deputies just flooding the House of Representatives or the
Senate just to ventilate their own petty or significant grievances and muddle
with the proceedings of the House?
MR. SARMIENTO: The Members of the House or of the Senate will be there to
check the ventilation of petty sentiments, and if they think that the
sentiments
that are being aired are petty, they can easily terminate the answers, not
necessarily the interpellations.
MS. AQUINO: My personal concern is that this proposed amendment, being
unqualified and unconditional, may destroy the essence of the Question
Hour.
MR. SARMIENTO: I am willing to submit the matter.
MR. ROMULO: May I interrupt, Madam President? There are some
Commissioners who will propose the deletion of Section 20. So, this is one
time where I think
the rule on anterior amendments applies.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 11:12 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:32 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am withdrawing my amendment by
addition but with reservations that should the amendment by deletion to be
proposed by
Commissioner Monsod be disapproved, then I will proceed with my
amendment by substitution and addition.
THE PRESIDENT: The request is noted.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, actually we were going to propose not a
deletion but a substitution which would consolidate the proposals of several
people
including Commissioners Sarmiento and Suarez, but we will do that at the
appropriate time. We just want to state some of the reasons we are
proposing this
change.
Due to the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative
and the fact that the assemblymen or congressmen are not going to be
members of
the Cabinet, this procedure really would result in inequality between the two
independent branches of government. The purpose of the Question Hour
historically was really for Members of the legislature who are in the executive
to answer to their peers and, therefore, the Question Hour is conducted on
a peer basis. In a separation of powers between the executive and the
legislative, the members of the Cabinet have to go through the Commission
on
Appointments in the first place and the legislative acts on development
programs, tariffs, duties, and so on. The requirement where Cabinet
members can be
mandated to appear before the legislative and to account for their actions
really puts them on unequal terms with the legislators. The Cabinet members
are
purely alter egos of the President. They are no longer Members of the
legislature, and to do so would violate the separation of powers of the
executive and
the legislative branches. However, we recognize that there should be a
mechanism by which the Cabinet members may be summoned and may,
even on their own
initiative, appear before the legislature because this would promote
coordination without subordinating one body to another. That is why we are
willing to
suggest a substitute provision that would reflect these sentiments.
May I ask Commissioner Suarez to do it, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Let us hear Commissioner Suarez.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Here is the proposed amendment by substitution and this was taken
verbatim from the provisions of Section 24, under the Article on the
Legislature in the
1935 Constitution. So Section 20 as proposed to be amended would read as
follows: THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS UPON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE OR UPON
THE REQUEST OF
EITHER HOUSE MAY APPEAR BEFORE AND BE HEARD BY SUCH HOUSE ON
ANY MATTER PERTAINING TO THEIR DEPARTMENTS, UNLESS THE PUBLIC
INTEREST SHALL REQUIRE OTHERWISE
AND THE PRESIDENT SHALL SO STATE IN WRITING. WRITTEN QUESTIONS
SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OR THE SPEAKER
OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AT LEAST THREE DAYS BEFORE A SCHEDULED
APPEARANCE. INTERPELLATIONS SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO WRITTEN
QUESTIONS, BUT MAY COVER MATTERS RELATED
THERETO. THE AGENDA SHALL SPECIFY THE SUBJECTS OF THE APPEARANCE.
WHEN THE SECURITY OF THE STATE SO REQUIRES AND THE PRESIDENT SO
STATES IN WRITING, THE
APPEARANCE SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
That is the proposed amendment by substitution Section 20 of the proposed
draft.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. DAVIDE: Do we understand from the proponents that we will retain,
therefore, the portion of the original Section 20, beginning with the sentence.
MR. DAVIDE: We are glad that matter is pointed out because that was really
deleted by inadvertence. Madam President, we will also propose to include in
that particular amendment, if it would be accepted by Commissioner
Sarmiento, to delete the s in the words Senators and Members on line
2; and then
on line 3, between the word be and the phrase TO SERVE THE UNEXPIRED
TERM, we insert a comma (,).
MR. SARMIENTO: Gladly accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. DAVIDE: We accept the amendment, amended, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment on lines 2 and
3 of page 3.
Will the sponsor please read the provision as amended?
MR. DAVIDE: So, the two lines, as amended, will now read: . . . vacancy
occurs to elect the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, as
the case
may be, TO SERVE THE UNEXPIRED TERM.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized, Madam
President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, the amendment I propose to offer will be on
page 9, Section 27, paragraph 1, lines 21 to 23. The sentence there reads:
The President shall act on every bill passed by the Congress within thirty
days after the date of receipt there- of; otherwise, it shall become a law as if
he had signed it.
Under this provision, it is very difficult or almost impossible to verify whether
or not the President has acted on the bill within 30 days. What I propose
to do is to change the language so that there will be a mechanism for
verifying whether or not the President has acted on the bill within the
prescribed
period. So, I propose to delete the phrase act on every bill passed by the
Congress and in lieu thereof insert the phrase COMMUNICATE HIS VETO OF
ANY
BILL TO THE HOUSE WHERE IT ORIGINATED, so, the sentence now will read:
The President shall COMMUNICATE HIS VETO OF ANY BILL TO THE HOUSE
WHERE IT
ORIGINATED within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it
shall become a law as if he had signed it.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this acceptable?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, before accepting or rejecting the proposal,
Commissioner Guingona would like to propound a question.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. GUINGONA: I presume that when Commissioner Bernas talks of
communication, he is referring to notification in writing.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. GUINGONA: Not oral?
FR. BERNAS: I refer to notification or communication in writing.
MR. GUINGONA: But if the effect of that non communication is that the bill
shall become a law as if he had signed it, is there need for the President to
communicate his veto?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely, unless we have this, the President could sit on that
bill for a hundred days and then when we ask him, What have you done
with it?
he could very well say, I vetoed it ten days after you gave it to me, and
he presents us a bill that is vetoed only on that day itself but dated so
many months ago.
MR. GUINGONA: I see, thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized to ask a few questions
of the distinguished proponent?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
In the second sentence of this particular section, there is a statement here
which reads:
If he approves the same, he shall sign it, otherwise, he shall veto it and
return the same with his objections to the NATIONAL ASSEMBLY . . .
That is a situation different from the one the Commissioner seeks to amend
because what he seeks to amend has something to do with nonaction rather
than a
positive action like a veto. Would not his proposed amendment be more
relevant to the vetoing situation?
FR. BERNAS: If we put in there that he must veto a bill within 30 days and if
he does not, that means he accepted it, then it would have the same effect.
MR. SUAREZ: That is exactly what I am trying to point out. Can we reword it
the way the Commissioner and I are thinking about this?
FR. BERNAS: We can reword it especially if it is acceptable to the Committee.
But the idea is there that if he is going to veto the bill, he must veto it
within 30 days.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, I agree to that.
FR. BERNAS: And there must be a way of verifying whether he vetoed it or
not.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. GUINGONA: Instead of just referring to the veto, why not refer to the
action whether it is a veto or approval? The President has to communicate in
writing his action on the bill.
FR. BERNAS: That would also be acceptable.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee accepts the proposed
amendment.
FR. BERNAS: With rewording?
THE PRESIDENT: How is it reworded now?
FR. BERNAS: We have not formulated it yet.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I understand that the proper place for the
amendment would really be at the place indicated by the main proponent
because this
will now control the veto in paragraph 1 of Section 27. It provides the limit.
That is the thinking of the Committee.
FR. BERNAS: So, the sponsor is accepting my amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President, because we really believe that the
amendment should be in this Section 27 since it provides for the limitation of
the
period within which a veto must have to be communicated by the President.
MR. ROMULO: Will the proponent read the amendment, please?
FR. BERNAS: After consultation with representatives of the Committee, the
proposal now reads: The President shall act on every bill passed by the
Congress
AND COMMUNICATE HIS ACTION TO THE HOUSE WHERE IT ORIGINATED
within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall BE
CONSIDERED AS
SIGNED INTO LAW.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: It seems that the first wording which refers to veto is better
because if he signs it, it will be awkward to say otherwise, it shall become a
law.
FR. BERNAS: Under the second wording we have to modify the final clause.
MR. RODRIGO: But under the first wording where the Commissioner used
veto, we do not have to change otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we have it now as finally reworded?
FR. BERNAS: The amendment reads: The President shall COMMUNICATE HIS
VETO OF ANY BILL TO THE HOUSE WHERE IT ORIGINATED within thirty days
after the date
of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
The sense is all there and the rest could be just a matter of style.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee accepts.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any Objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
nearby
legislative district, so as not to disenfranchise the inhabitants of those
provinces and cities. Let us take the case of Batanes. This province is not
contiguous with any district and its population is less than 200,000. What
happens?
MR. DAVIDE: It will be entitled to one representation because it is an entire
province, even if its population is less than 200,000.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then we have to reword this amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: There is no need because we precisely separated the city with a
population of at least 200,000 from the province by a comma (,). So, the
200-thousand requirement will apply only to the city and not to the province.
That was the concern of Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then the city shall be a part of a legislative district?
MR. DAVIDE: If its population is less than 200,000 then, it would only be a
component of a district. Certainly, it will not be without representation.
MR. DE CASTRO: Allow me to write our amendment on this matter.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I address a point of clarification to the Committee?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I understand that the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo as modified by the Committee would
allow representation of
a province regardless of population requirement.
MR. DAVIDE: Correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: Has the Committee considered the logic of this
requirement? Let us take the case of Batanes. Batanes has seven
municipalities with something
like 25,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. In our allocation of seats, we are guided by
two things: contiguous territory grouped together and the minimum number
of
inhabitants which is 200,000. Another case is Siquijor which has only around
50,000 to 60,000 inhabitants.
I wonder if the Committee has taken this matter into consideration, because
if we are saying that we cannot tack a province onto an existing legislative
district, I think this can be resolved quite easily. An example is Siquijor which
had always been a part of Negros Oriental before, but which all of a
sudden became a province. What I am trying to say is that if we have a city
which is not a component city with something like 195,000 population, we
cannot
even allow it to have its own legislative district, in spite of the fact that it is
only 5,000 less than the minimum requirement of 200,000. But we have a
province with only 25,000 voters and just because it is a province, we give it
legislative representation. Can the Committee not consider tacking this onto
a bigger government unit?
MS. AQUINO: I shall attempt to answer in behalf of the Committee. The
provisions of Section 5 proceed from the general principle that
representation is
based on population not territory such that a constitutional provision which
would grant a province one representative regardless of population
requirement
is a mere exception to the general rule of apportionment. Other wise, we
might be facing problems such as fractional representation.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is precisely the point. If the main basis of giving
representation to an identified area of this country is population, a
representative
is supposed to represent at least 200,000 inhabitants. But this exception,
which I think is the intention of the Committee, is preposterous. Twenty-five
thousand people to be represented by one representative?
I have nothing against these provinces. As a matter of fact I have no
relations whatsoever with them but I am trying to visualize the situation
where we
have to be logical in our basis of representation. I am trying to discuss this
problem on the basis of logic and nothing more. I was wondering if the
Committee has considered this thoroughly. If the Committee says so then
that would be perfectly all right with me. I will not go further so that we will
not waste our time.
MS. AQUINO: We have considered this thoroughly. The absurd situation is
that if we apply the rule of apportionment on the basis of population
absolutely
and unqualifiedly, then provinces with small populations will have fractional
representation. That would even do more injustice than justice.
MR. MAAMBONG: What I was actually suggesting, if it is at all possible, is that
we try to look at these isolated provinces in the context of the nearest
area onto which-it can be tacked. Siquijor could be tacked very well to
Negros Oriental. I do not know the nearest province where Batanes can be
tacked
onto. But that is just a suggestion in order not to be incongruous in our
representation. I think it is a little bit incongruous if we have representatives
each representing only 25,000 people whereas the rest represent 200,000
people each or more. If this can at all be done, I suggest that the small
provinces
should be tacked onto an existing government unit so that the whole
population of these units will be divided equally.
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is not proposing any amendment,
is he?
MR. MAAMBONG: No, I am not proposing an amendment. I am just calling the
attention of the Committee that perhaps, it could consider tacking these
provinces
onto existing government units.
THE PRESIDENT: We still have before us the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Rigos.
Does Commissioner de Castro want to talk about the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Rigos?
MR. DE CASTRO: I would like to introduce an amendment on lines 6 and 7.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we first dispose of the amendment of Commissioner
Rigos?
REV. RIGOS: I will yield to Commissioner de Castro because I am through with
that section, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, we now move to page 2, Section 5, lines
4 up to 8.
MR. SARMIENTO: Point of order, Madam President. I think we had an
agreement this morning that the Commissioner proposing amendments
should be allowed to
finish all his amendments first before another Commissioner can propose his.
REV. RIGOS: On the other hand, our experience also tells us that the number
seems a little too large, and so, I would like to get the decision of the body
on this proposal, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I speak in favor of the amendment of Commissioner
Rigos?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
When my time comes, it is also my perception to recommend six Senators
and six Congressmen, the same as Commissioner Rigos amendment for the
reason that
these 25 members of the Commission will be quite unwieldy and will make
Congress appear like a political market. I know this because I used to carry
the
roster of the Armed Forces in the Congress for confirmation and we had to
meet and talk with so many people. I believe that 13 members can work
better than
25 just as we reduced the membership in the judiciary or in the Supreme
Court, because according to the present Chief Justice, they can better work
and
there will be better harmony if they have a lesser number. So, I am in favor
of the amendment of Commissioner Rigos.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I just want to call attention to the fact that the members of
the Commission on Appointments will be selected on the basis of
proportional
representation from the political parties or sectors represented therein. In
this Constitution we are abandoning the two-party system by means of
election
inspectors So, in all probability, there will be many parties. Hence, if we have
only six, it might be difficult to apportion the members among the
different parties.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now? The proposed amendment has
not been accepted by the Committee. Does Commissioner Rigos insist on his
proposed
amendment?
REV. RIGOS: Yes, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Rigos changing the number 12 to 6 on line 18, will please raise their hand.
(Few
Members raised their hand.)
Those against the amendment will please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
The results show 15 votes in favor and 20 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Bacani be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Before I propose my amendment, may I ask the members of
the Committee a question? Yesterday, Commissioner Monsod explained that
the sectors
could have entry into the Congress through the party list system. Does the
sponsor have the same understanding as that of Commissioner Monsod?
MR. DAVIDE: That was the explanation of Commissioner Monsod.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. Does Commissioner Davide agree with it?
MR. DAVIDE: Before agreeing to that, I would like to inquire from
Commissioner Monsod if his position carries the sense of the last stand-of
Commissioner
Villacorta on sectoral representation.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, as a matter of fact, I was going to propose
an amendment coauthored by Commissioner Villacorta in order to clarify that
point
an sectoral representation. But I am still four places away.
BISHOP BACANI: My understanding is according to Commissioner Monsods
understanding. I would like to suggest that on page 1, line 29, we delete the
word
sectors, and the wordings on the last line should simply read: . . . shall be
elected from the party list.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please repeat the section where the
amendment by deletion will be made?
BISHOP BACANI: It should be on Section 5. The amended section will now
read: The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
hundred
and fifty members who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces and cities in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,
and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the party list.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Commissioner eliminate the word sectors?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, may we request that consideration of this
proposed amendment be deferred until we shall have heard the proposal of
Commissioner Monsod? I understand that he and Commissioner Villacorta
will also propose an amendment on this line.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will defer this proposed amendment to give the parties
time to confer with each other.
BISHOP BACANI: I submit, Madam President. I now go to page 6, line 16,
Section 19. I begin with line 15: . . . He shall not intervene in any matter
before
any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit. I move for the
deletion of the words for his pecuniary benefit because it will not be so
easy to
establish the evidence for this.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: There was already an amendment proposed by Commissioner
Regalado, duly elected by the Committee and voted favorably by the body
which starts
after the word benefit. The added approved amendment reads: or where
he may be called upon to act on account of his office. I understand that this
will
Justice now if he was confirmed as fiscal then. But because one member of
the
Commission had refused to approve his- appointment, the position was lost.
So, in short, the amendment is by addition. After the word tie, we add the
following: THE COMMISSION SHALL ACT ON ALL APPOINTMENTS SUBMITTED
TO IT WITHIN
TEN SESSION DAYS. WHEN OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION, A RETIRED CHIEF
OF STAFF, DESIGNATED BY THE
CHAIRMAN, SHALL SIT AS AN EX-OFFICIO MEMBER THEREOF WITHOUT RIGHT
TO VOTE. THE COMMISSION SHALL RULE ON MAJORITY VOTE.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I am a member of the Committee but I am
acting on my own.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I was a member of the Commission on
Appointments for 10 years, from 1957 to 1967, and I am sure that the rule in
the then
Commission on Appointments was not to have a unanimous vote in the
confirmation of appointments. It was by majority vote. Secondly, the
proposal says that
the Commission shall act within 10 session days. The Commission on
Appointments, in my time, did not meet everyday. As a matter of fact, it met
only about
five, seven times during the regular session. At that time, of course, there
was a limit on our regular sessions 100 days exclusive of Sundays. We
were
swamped with many, many appointments and we had committees acting on
different appointments. We had the Committee on the Armed Forces,
Committee on the
Judiciary, and a committee on different departments.
Ten days is really too short. I would also like to ask what happens if the
Commission on Appointments fails to act on an appointment within 10 days?
The
rule at that time when I was a member of the Commission on Appointments
was that if the Commission failed to act on an appointment after the
adjournment of
the session, then the appointment was deemed rejected; but the President
could reappoint the rejected appointee in an acting capacity until the next
can be treated separately from each other. As to the first, we will have no
objection provided the period should be, say, 30 session days.
MR. DE CASTRO: I have no qualms about it, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: So, if the proponent agrees to fix it to a period of 30 session
days instead of 10, the Committee is inclined to accept the first.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, I agree.
MR. RODRIGO: I have no objection. I just want to make something clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: This refers to the session days of Congress, not of the
Commission on Appointments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable, 30 session days of Congress?
MR. DE CASTRO: It is acceptable, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we put that first to a vote, Mr. Chairman?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, as worded, it will read: THE COMMISSION
SHALL ACT ON ALL APPOINTMENTS SUBMITTED TO IT WITHIN THIRTY
SESSION DAYS OF CONGRESS
FROM THEIR SUBMISSION.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On the second concept regarding the appointments to the
military with the chief of staff as ex officio member, we would rather leave it
to the
body.
MR. DE CASTRO: To be designated by the Chairman; meaning, if there are
three retired chiefs of staff, the Chairman can select who among the three he
wants
to be his adviser in the Commission on Appointments.
MR. DAVIDE: We would rather leave it to the body to decide, Madam
President.
MR. DE CASTRO: We submit, Madam President.
The results show 3 votes in favor and 15 against; the proposed amendment
is lost.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall go now to the third portion of the amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: The third portion of the amendment is: THE COMMISSION
SHALL RULE ON A MAJORITY VOTE OF ALL ITS MEMBERS.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this acceptable to the Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: We seek the recognition of Commissioner Rodrigo on the
matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: It is the rule of the Commission on Appointments that a
decision is made by majority vote. Also, the Commission on Appointments
will be
composed of elective members, 12 of them elected nationally by the people
and 12 elected by districts or by party list.
Madam President, I think a commission such as this should be given the
discretion to promulgate its own rules like other commissions are allowed to
promulgate their own rules. We should not also impose a rule by
constitutional mandate.
MR. DE CASTRO: The sad experiences of the past have compelled me to
recommend this amendment because while the rule in the Commission on
Appointments is
for a majority vote, as stated by the Honorable Rodrigo, yet the sad
experience is that they seek the unanimity of all its members before an
appointment
can push through. This is the reason I have to put this amendment, Madam
President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee adopts the position of
Commissioner Rodrigo, he being a member of the Committee, and would
rather throw the
matter to a vote by the House.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
involving public interest; in which case, the President would have a very
limited say on the appearance of the head of a department:
Finally, as explained this morning, the appearance of the head of the ministry
would not be mandatory. Upon the other hand, if the minister on his own
initiative wants to appear before the National Assembly, it would be
mandatory upon the National Assembly to accept and receive him. In short, a
Cabinet
member makes his own terms of appearance before the National Assembly.
Therefore, it will more than rebut the desired objective of allowing the
National
Assembly to check on the members of the Cabinet.
It is, therefore, with deep regret that the Committee cannot accept the
proposed amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Is the Committee disposed to accept the wording of this
particular provision as reflected in Section 24, Article VI of the 1935
Constitution?
In other words, would the Committee accept the insertion of the following
phrase after the word ministries: UNLESS THE PUBLIC INTEREST SHALL
REQUIRE
OTHERWISE AND THE PRESIDENT SHALL SO STATE IN WRITING?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee feels that somehow, if there should be a
blending of the 1935 concept and the proposed amendment which is
basically in the 1973
Constitution, it is submitted that the one read this morning after the
amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento would achieve a happy blending. Of
course, the
Committee will have to make some comments on it.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we request a suspension of the session?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 3:41 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:44 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT The session is resumed.
directory
character.
MR. DAVIDE: Subject to the Rules of the House.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, we will accept that also.
MR. DAVIDE: So, it is clearly understood that it should be subject to the Rules
of each House.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Will the distinguished proponent answer a clarificatory
question in the penultimate sentence of the proposed amendment which
reads: THE
AGENDA SHALL SPECIFY THE SUBJECTS OF THE APPEARANCE. Will the
Gentleman please explain the meaning of this sentence? What exactly is the
meaning of
SUBJECTS OF THE APPEARANCE?
MR. SUAREZ: SUBJECTS OF THE APPEARANCE could mean two things: One,
the reason for the appearance; and second, what would be taken up in
connection with
the proposed appearance.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would suggest a rewording of this, Madam President, so
that the intent is clearly indicated. If I recall correctly, in the Regular
Batasang
Pambansa, it is the question sent in advance to a Cabinet Minister which is
classified by subject. So that in the presentation on the floor, the Cabinet
minister appearing before the body will answer in a systematic manner by
the subject of the questions. That is the procedure adopted in the First
Regular
Batasang Pambansa. So, perhaps a rewording is in order, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Would changing the word APPEARANCE to INTERPELLATIONS
satisfy the observations made by the Gentleman because we should benefit
from his
experience in a parliament. We have not had that kind of experience. In
other words, the sentence should read: THE AGENDA SHALL SPECIFY THE
SUBJECTS OF THE
INTERPELLATIONS.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, point of information.
insisted on the insertion of the words AS THE RULES OF EACH HOUSE MAY
PROVIDE.
MR. REGALADO: I think it was the sense of the Committee that the moment a
minister wants to appear before the House, then the House shall authorize
his
appearance, not the House to refuse.
MR. DAVIDE: That was the answer to the question of the Committee but the
Committee did not want it to be because of the extent and the scope and the
meaning. Otherwise, we will have a minister commanding the National
Assembly. So, it will now be left to the rules of each House.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the body ready to vote?
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, just one more point. In the second
sentence, it already says, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PRESIDENT. The last
phrase of the
sentence reads, UNLESS THE PUBLIC INTEREST SHALL REQUIRE
OTHERWISE, AND THE PRESIDENT SO STATES IN WRITING. If the President
does not consent, we do not
need the last phrase. The phrase WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PRESIDENT
is all-embracing. How many consent do we need anyway?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President. The situation is different in the last
sentence because this has reference to the security of the state or the public
interest and the only condition here is that the appearance shall be
conducted in an executive session instead of a public session, for example,
or a
session before either of the Houses.
MR. MAAMBONG: No, Madam President. I am not referring to the last
sentence. I am referring to the first sentence. The first sentence on the
appearance of
the heads of ministries upon their own initiative with the consent of the
President is very clear. In other words, they cannot appear without the
consent
of the President. But in the last phrase of the first sentence, we repeat the
phrase UNLESS THE PUBLIC INTEREST SHALL REQUIRE OTHERWISE, AND
THE PRESIDENT
SO STATES IN WRITING.
MR. SUAREZ: No, may I interrupt, Madam President. That portion is already
deleted. It is not included in our proposed amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, the period (.) would be after the phrase OR
ANY MATTER PERTAINING TO THEIR MINISTRIES.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Suarez yield to just one question?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: It has happened before, and it will likely happen again, that a
President has invoked the mantle of executive privilege in order to prevent a
member of the Cabinet from appearing in the Senate or in the House of
Representatives on call of either House under this proposed provision. What
will
happen then? Will a dead lock arise? And is this now not the moment to
anticipate such possibilities that can develop into a crisis between two
branches of
the government? Suppose the President invokes the mantle of executive
privilege so that a Cabinet minister summoned to the Question Hour is
unable to
appear, what does the proponent think of that?
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, that situation has happened time and again
in the past, and that is in pursuit of the doctrine of separation of powers. So,
in
a situation like that, it is the privilege of the President to seek recourse under
the mantle of executive privilege. In other words, he may instruct his
Cabinet member not to respond to the summons or the invitation extended
by the Congress.
MR. OPLE: This will not be deemed a violation of this constitutional provision,
simply because a sitting President has invoked the mantle of executive
privilege?
MR. SUAREZ: I do not believe it is a violation of this particular provision,
Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the body ready to vote now? Will Commissioner Suarez
now read Section 20, as corrected and revised?
MR. SUAREZ: THE HEADS OF MINISTRIES MAY UPON THEIR OWN
INITIATIVE . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Ministries or departments?
MR. SUAREZ: It depends on the Committee on Style but I might as well use
departments.
So, the amendment, as amended, is as follows: THE HEADS OF
DEPARTMENTS MAY UPON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE, WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE PRESIDENT, OR UPON THE
REQUEST OF EITHER HOUSE, AS THE RULES OF EACH HOUSE SHALL
PROVIDE, APPEAR BEFORE AND BE HEARD BY SUCH HOUSE ON ANY MATTER
PERTAINING TO THEIR DEPARTMENTS.
WRITTEN QUESTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
SENATE OR THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT LEAST
THREE DAYS BEFORE HIS SCHEDULED
APPEARANCE. INTERPELLATIONS SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO WRITTEN
QUESTIONS, BUT MAY COVER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEN THE
SECURITY OF THE STATE OR THE PUBLIC
INTEREST SO REQUIRES AND THE PRESIDENT SO STATES IN WRITING, THE
APPEARANCE SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment, as amended, has been accepted by the
Committee.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment to Section 20? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendment, as amended, is approved.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, Chairman and members of the Committee,
I would like to propose an amendment by addition to Section 19, page 6. This
morning
we already approved the following on line 3: No Senator or Member of the
House of Representatives may appear as counsel before any court of
justice. I
propose that a comma (,) be placed after justice and after Electoral
Tribunals the following phrase be inserted: QUASI-JUDICIAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES. I think the omission of these bodies is very significant because these
are areas or bodies where a Senator or Member of the House can wield or
exert undue influence or pressure. It is actually a transposition of line 9 with
the addition of the word QUASI-JUDICIAL. This would include such bodies
as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Civil Service Commission
and other quasi-judicial bodies as well as administrative bodies like ministries
where a solon can exercise some of his power and authority.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please repeat the amendment?
MS. QUESADA: After court of justice insert a comma (,); then after
Electoral Tribunals, insert QUASI-JUDICIAL.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of the Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we would rather request the following
amendment: After the comma (,) following justice, insert OR BEFORE THE.
Then after the
comma (,) following Tribunals insert OR QUASI-JUDICIAL OR
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES. Is that the exact wording?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Such that it would read: Before any court of justice, OR
BEFORE THE Electoral Tribunals, OR QUASI-JUDICIAL AND OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES.
MS. QUESADA: I accept the amendment to the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee accepts the amendment. Madam President,
because that was actually the original concept in Section 19 before the
amendment of
Commissioner Colayco.
MS. QUESADA: May I propose my second amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Let us first dispose of this one. Is there any objection to this
particular amendment?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I am constrained to voice my opposition to this further
expansion of the prohibition for a lawyer-member of Congress to appear as
counsel. In
not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his
pecuniary benefit, or where he may be called upon to act on account of his
office.
So, we believe that, as worded, the provision is so all-encompassing and allembracing that we will have a Senator or a Member of the House who cannot
even
practice his legal profession, nor be interested in any contract for that
matter, nor can he even intervene in any cause or matter before any office
for
his pecuniary benefit or otherwise, where he may be called upon to act on
account of his office. We have installed or enthroned a Senator or a Member
of
the legislature whom we can consider to be perhaps, like Caesars wife,
always above suspicion.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I withdraw the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment has been withdrawn.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Tingson be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you, Madam President.
My first amendment will affect Section 4 on page 1, which reads:
No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age,
able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines
for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.
Madam President, members of the Committee, I propose to change thirtyfive years of age to FORTY years of age so that the phrase will read at least
FORTY years of age.
May I reason out briefly, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed. The Gentleman has five minutes.
MR. TINGSON: Personally, the reason why I opted for an Upper Chamber in
the legislature is that we shall be able to develop future chief executives of
the
land. The Senators will, therefore, be looked upon as elder statesmen like
leaders-in-waiting. In other words, I am referring, Madam President and
members
of the Committee, to political maturity. It is at this juncture that I would like
to make my point in stressing why we should make the minimum age
requirement of our Senators to be 40 years. In the oriental milieu, 40 is the
age of maturity. Such age is when a man begins to be more dignified and
also
experienced. While there are exceptional individuals, most of our leaders
attain full maturity at this age when they have already exposed themselves
to the
many challenges, even frustrations and defeats. To be a leader, therefore, of
national stature requires a personality that has already been mellowed with
experience; a personality that has already been tested by time. I think, we
have heard this refrain: Life begins at 40.
If we look at the age requirement of the President in the 1973 Constitution
and now in the proposed Constitution, the suggestion is he should be at least
40 years of age; so are the justices of the Supreme Court. Our Senator
should be of the same prime age so that almost immediately, if necessary,
and if he
succeeds in doing it, he could jump into the high executive office of the land.
In other words, I am talking of the impulsive youth or the impulsive
temperament of youth against the considered temper of matured men; the
indecisiveness of the young versus the definitive wisdom of their respective
older
mentors; I am talking of political in maturity of men, men of experience
against the developing mental capacities of the rising generation. I know that
there were exceptions in the past. Ninoy Aquino was below 40 when he
became a charismatic figure of the Philippines. Our own Jose Rizal was only
35 when he
said, I would die, and he did die for the Filipino people at Bagumbayan
Field. My tokayo, Gregorio del Pilar, was only 30 years old when he
defended
Tirad Pass; General Carlos P. Romulo, the father of our own Commissioner
Romulo, was only 24 when Manuel Quezon discovered him and became
editor of The
Herald newspaper; the Man from Nazareth was only 33 when he walked by
the shores of Galilee.
Madam President, I know that we are talking of practical, pragmatic and
political considerations here. And so, I would like the Committee to accept
my
amendment and make it FORTY instead of thirty-five.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
the youth, have continually rejected. We have shown in the past and we shall
continue to show that the youth and students will assert their role in
Philippine society. We have a responsibility to history and we call on our
elders to
encourage the youth to become active participants in the political sphere.
As we have already expressed, some of our greatest leaders and those who
have provided inspiration to the struggle for national independence were
very
young. Even Commissioner Tingson himself has expressed that Dr. Jose Rizal,
Emilio Jacinto, Aguinaldo, Benigno Aquino, and many others were very
young.
Therefore, I believe, it is not age which defines statesmanship; it is
commitment to the aspirations of the Filipino people.
Therefore, I object to this proposal and I suggest that we put it to a vote.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: I expected this strong opposition from our young handsome
men and I was not talking indeed of immaturity on their part. May I repeat
what I
said political maturity of men of experience against the developing mental
capacities of the rising generation. We are talking of men who could
immediately become President of the country and the age that we require of
the President is at least 40 years.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Tingson yield to a question?
MR. TINGSON: Gladly so, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: The Gentleman himself cited the examples of the founding fathers
of this country, none of whom exceeded the age of 35 at the time of the full
flowering of their talents and genius and their service to the fatherland. Does
not Commissioner Tingson recall that President Aguinaldo was 27 years old
when he presided over the Malolos Republic; Apolinario Mabini at the time he
was at the zenith of his political career as Prime Minister of the War Cabinet
of Aguinaldo was 35; Andres Bonifacio was 29; Emilio Jacinto was only 19
when he wrote the cartilla of the Katipunan. I am afraid that if we set the age
limit for the Senate at 40, if we assume that all the founding fathers of the
Philippines as a modern nation had been resurrected in our time and place,
none of them would qualify to be a candidate for Senator of the Philippines.
Does Commissioner Tingson agree?
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, that is precisely why I took the initiative
before somebody else mentioned it of Ninoy Aquino, Rizal, Gregorio del Pilar
and
others because in the case of General Aguinaldo, there was a dearth of
leadership among men who were available at an age more than what he was
then, in the
case of Mabini, in the case of Rizal. But now, Madam President, I am not
referring anymore to scarcity or dearth of men at that particular age and it
seems
to me that the younger men I am not certainly saying here that younger
men, like the two honorable young Commissioners who spoke a while ago so
passionately, defending, of course, what they think should be defended
should not be given the fullest opportunity to rise. What I am saying is, Time
in
Gods hand is no delay.
MR. OPLE: Yes. There is, of course, a reverse standard with respect to age. In
the American campuses of the 1960s, the motto was: If you are over 30, we
do
not trust you. In effect, Commissioner Tingson is saying: If you are under 40,
we do not trust you.
MR. TINGSON: I do not say that and I did not mean that.
MR. OPLE: In terms of developing the age qualification for a Member of the
Senate, under the provision that is under discussion we all know that the
velocity of information has greatly accelerated since those days of the
founding fathers.
Today, it is said that a high school student of mathematics and of physics
would likely know more than the sum total of what, let us say, Galileo and
Copernicus knew in their time, and that it is possible because of these
factors the knowledge explosion, the velocity of information that at a
lower
age in our own society one can possess the kind of knowledge that can equip
him far better to perform the functions of a member of the legislature than,
let us say, his own counterpart of several generations ago. Therefore, the
1935 Constitution set an age floor of 35 for the Senate, 25 for the House of
Representatives, 40 for the President and the Vice-President. I thought this
three-layered kind of age qualification responded precisely to what
Commissioner Tingson calls the maturity needs for each category: 25 for the
House, 35 for the Senate, and 40 for the President and the Vice-President.
Will Commissioner Tingson still insist in the face of this evidence that we
should set the age floor of the Senate at 40?
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Tingson say?
MR. TINGSON: I would like to leave that to the Commission if the Committee
does not accept it.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, may I have one more word. In this day and
age of possibilities of nuclear annihilation, the leadership of the nation
should
as much as possible be given to those with political maturity and allow the
younger men to assist them and develop while awaiting the time when they
will
have their own chance at leadership.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: It seems from the arguments of Commissioner Tingson that he
equates political maturity with age. It is the consensus all over the world that
a
child of five years now knows more about things and of life than the children
of yesteryears, for the simple reason that he is exposed to more modern
technological advances. The Commissioner probably meant that at the age
of 40, one tends to be more careful and more cautious. It is about time that
we
give a chance to the younger people. I am no longer 35 but some of the best
movies that I did were done when I was 30. And somehow I could never
recapture
the feeling that I was on top of the world at that time and at that particular
age.
I think that thinking of equating political maturity with age is being narrowminded. The Commissioner speaks about the impulsiveness of youth. On the
other hand, he should also speak about the idealism of youth at that
particular age, who are not yet jaded by experiences. It is at that moment
when one
feels strongly that he could achieve great things.
So may I make an amendment to that and probably make the age limit at 30.
Thank you.
have the
Congress working unless by law, enacted by itself, it will determine the
length of its sessions and the length of its recesses.
And so, we feel that the proposal is not necessary anymore.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, compared to the Constitution that we did
help write in 1973, would Congress under our new Charter meet in session
much
longer?
MR. DAVIDE: This is practically a restatement of the 1973 Constitution, as
compared to that of the 1935 Constitution which limited the session to only
100
days a year. Hence, the proposal of the Gentleman would have been
acceptable if we limited the session to only 100 days a year.
MR. TINGSON: I am satisfied then, if that is the explanation.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: I have only three little amendments. On page 5, Section 18, line 27,
after the word shall, put a comma (,) and then insert the words WITHOUT
FORFEITING HIS SEAT, then, comma (,). On line 30, same section, same
page, delete the comma (,) after the word corporations and add the words
AND THEIR
SUBSIDIARIES, then put a period (.) but delete the words during his tenure.
These twin amendments will only reflect the intent of the Committee as
stated by the Chairman during interpellations yesterday. This will provide
that the
disqualification of a Member of Congress from holding any other office or
employment in government is not absolute. This means that if he accepts an
appointment outside Congress, he forfeits his membership in the legislature.
That is the explanation, Madam President.
MR. AZCUNA: With respect to the first part regarding forfeiture, it is already
there because it says during his tenure. So, if he accepts it, he will
have to relinquish his position as Member of Congress. Tenure in law
means the actual occupancy of the office. However, with respect to the
government-owned or controlled corporations, does the Gentleman propose
to add AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES? Is that correct?
the prohibition during the term for which he was elected so that it will
apply even if he resigns.
MR. FOZ: That would be quite unfair. The reason for the prohibition against
financial interest is precisely to avoid a situation where a Member of
Congress
will be able to use his influence in order to push through, for instance, a
contract with the government, and also to acquire a franchise or special
privilege granted by government, not only for himself but on behalf of
others, perhaps his clients. But when he is no longer a Member of Congress,
he loses
the same influence which he would otherwise wield if he were a Member of
Congress. So it would be quite unjust for the prohibition to follow him even if
he
is no longer a Member of Congress.
MR. AZCUNA: We would like to submit this to the Commission, Madam
President.
MR. FOZ: It is just a matter of justice, I suppose.
MR. AZCUNA: I somehow feel that the dangers are still there, that it could
easily be circumvented, that this could be quid pro quo, given the
possibilities
...
MR. FOZ: Under ordinary circumstances, a Member would not just resign his
position. He would stick to his position. Could the Commissioner think of a
situation where a Member would resign just to be able to push through a
contract with government? It is quite unlikely.
MR. AZCUNA: In the United States, Madam President, it often happens that a
member of Congress resigns and becomes engaged in a private company
that does
business with the government. At least he should wait for the end of his
term.
MR. FOZ: I submit, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz would like the body to vote on his
amendment changing the word term online 15 of Section 19 to TENURE.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Foz,
please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 8 votes in favor and 17 against; the amendment is lost.
SUJPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 4:56 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:22 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, we have 12 more people who will present
amendments, so, in order to save time, may I propose that we have a recess
after which
I would ask each proponent to come up one by one to the Chairman and
discuss his proposal in the following order as listed in my calendar:
Commissioner
Rama is first . . .
MR. DAVIDE: Commissioner Ramas proposal has already been entered in to
the draft and discussed by the Committee.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
Commissioner Monsod would be next, followed by Commissioners Nolledo,
Aquino, Rodrigo, Ople, Natividad, Lerum, Maambong, Padilla, Tadeo, Romulo
and
Bengzon.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 5:24 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:28 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: This proposal refers to most of the cities in the Philippines. Almost
all the cities of the Philippines cover very small areas, and there is no
point in subdividing the cities into legislative or congressional districts.
Perhaps we can make an exception with respect to Manila. But in the last
election, the people were quite happy with the setup where all congressional
candidates had to be elected at large within the city. I do not see why it is
going to be objectionable now.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, perhaps we can make an exception of
Manila and Quezon City.
MR. RAMA: Yes, because these are really specially big cities.
MR. MONSOD: And they have a large number of voters there. One has 1.2 or
one million, and the other one has 800,000 or 900,000.
MR. RAMA: I would accept an amendment to that effect.
MR. DAVIDE: How should the amendment be placed on the main
amendment?
MR. RAMA: Except Manila and Quezon City.
MR. MONSOD: Are we saying, Madam President. that the situation would only
arise in Manila and Quezon City? Are there no others in the Philippines?
MR. RAMA: None other.
MR. MONSOD: How about Caloocan?
MR. RAMA: It is very small.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: There are no representatives in this Commission from other
significant cities, like Davao City, Cagayan de Oro. Bacolod, Iloilo, Baguio,
Dagupan.
Zamboanga I think, is represented by Commissioner Azcuna. I wonder if by
generalizing from the specific and possibly unique situation of the City of
Cebu,
we might in fact be meeting the criteria for all the other cities.
MR. RAMA: I can think of only three big cities among all the cities in the
Philippines, and these are: Manila, Quezon City and Davao City. At any rate,
in
the last election, that was the setup where all the congressional candidates
or the candidates to the Batasang Pambansa were elected at large in the
city.
There is merit there, Madam-President, because it would be good for the
political health and the political education of the people for all the candidates
to cover the whole city and explain their positions and discuss national
issues. I do not think there is any harmful effect on the people, even in
Manila
where all the candidates are supposed to be elected at large.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I really wish that the sponsors in the Committee
could develop a general principle for universal application instead of making
exceptions. For example, making an exception of the cities and the
component municipalities of Metro Manila might lead to the impression that
this is a
very formidable exception. It covers a population of about eight million. Can
we not, therefore, develop a general principle from the model of Metro
Manila
which is very substantial with a population of 8 million and, perhaps, make
an exception of the City of Cebu?
MR. RAMA: That is not really an exception, Madam President. If the
Commissioner can recall, in 1978, 21 candidates had to be elected by all the
people of
Metro Manila. If it was all right then, why should it not be all right now? In the
1984 election, I think that was the same situation, was it not?
MR. OPLE: No, it was somewhat different.
MR. RAMA: It was a little different in 1984, but in 1978, it was all right.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we defer this in view of the conflicting views on the
matter? May we proceed to the next amendment to which there may be no
objection?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I have another amendment to Section 1.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, all amendments which the Committee did not
accept will be taken up later. So, we request the Commissioner to defer his
proposed amendment to Section 1.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I think the amendment to Section I has been
accepted. My amendment was to delete the last phrase on lines 8 and 9.
May I read
the entire Section I.
FILL SUCH
VACANCY IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW, BUT THE SENATOR OR
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THUS ELECTED SHALL SERVE
ONLY FOR THE UNEXPIRED TERM.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this amendment accepted by the Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: It is accepted, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there need to explain to the Members?
MR. DAVIDE: I request that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized to make the
explanation. This is just a restatement of the provision of the 1935
Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Section 9 states that in case of vacancy in the Senate or in
the House of Representatives, the Commission on Elections shall call a
special
election to be held within 60 days after the vacancy occurs. It is all right for
the House of Representatives to call a special election because it would
be held only in one district. But if one Senator should die and a special
election will be called for the vacant seat of that Senator, the election will be
nationwide in the whole country and imagine the expense that will be
incurred.
During my time in the Senate, Senator Kangleon died and the special
election was held in the subsequent regular election. So, instead of eight
candidates
for the Senate, there were nine candidates and the ninth was the one who
was to fill the unexpired term of Senator Kangleon. However, if the
Constitution
provides that the election shall be held within 60 days, then there is no
discretion to hold the special election in the coming regular election, thereby
making it very expensive to have a special election nationwide for just one
Senator.
The amendment is a restatement of the 1935 provision on this matter.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee has accepted the amendment, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular amendment
proposed by Commissioners Rodrigo and Rosales and accepted by the
Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on page 3, Section 10, lines 10 and 11,
Commissioner Rodrigos amendment is to insert the word SPECIAL between
the words
to and session. Then after the word President, place a period (.); then
delete all that follow beginning with the word to up to the period (.) at
the end of line 11. The entire sentence beginning on line 9 will now read as
follows: However, it may be called to SPECIAL session at any time by the
President.
The Committee has accepted this amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: The next amendment is on page 5, Section 15. We accepted the
proposal of Commissioner Monsod with the explanation that the portion
regarding
the compensation of the first Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives shall be taken up under the Article on Transitory Provisions.
Commissioner Monsods proposal is as follows: On line 1, insert between the
article The at the beginning of the sentence and the word Senators the
words SALARIES OF; on line 2, delete the comma (,) after the word
Representatives and after the word shall, delete the comma (,) and insert
the
phrase BE DETERMINED BY LAW. Then delete the following words: unless
otherwise provided by law, receive an annual compensation of thousand
pesos each.
Then on lines 7 to 10, delete the last sentence starting with Until otherwise
provided by law, so that Section 15 will only read as follows: The
SALARIES OF Senators and tie Members of the House of Representatives
shall BE DETERMINED BY LAW. No increase in said compensation shall take
effect until
after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of
the House of Representatives approving such increase. The phrase Until
otherwise provided by law will now be transferred to the Article on the
Transitory Provisions.
The Committee has approved these amendments, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Will Commissioner Davide please read the first sentence
again from The.
MR. DAVIDE: The first sentence will read: The SALARIES OF Senators and the
Members of the House of Representatives shall BE DETERMINED BY LAW.
MR. RODRIGO: So they themselves will determine.
MR. DAVIDE: However, we have the second sentence which reads:
No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of
the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives approving such increase.
MR. RODRIGO: So if there is a long debate and it takes about a month before
they can pass the law, they receive no salary yet.
MR. DAVIDE: No, because in the Transitory Provisions, there is initial
compensation.
MR. RODRIGO: That is in the Transitory Provisions.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that is why as I said the last sentence will be transferred to
the Transitory Provisions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to make a manifestation that the Committee should
really take into consideration changing all of the relevant provisions in the
Constitution that specify compensation, because we know that after three or
five years, that compensation is already an obsolete figure. So, we might as
well leave it to legislation and just provide the initial compensation in the
Transitory Provisions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we now ready to vote?
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Monsod?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on Section 16, the same page 5, we have the
amendments of Commissioner Romulo which the Committee has accepted.
On line 12
between the words be and open insert the following words: PRESERVED
AND; on line 14, delete the article the between annually and itemized
and
substitute it with AN, and also the word expenditures and substitute it with
the following LIST OF AMOUNTS PAID TO AND EXPENSES INCURRED, so that
the
entire Section 16 will now read as follows: The records and books of
accounts of Congress shall be PRESERVED AND opened to the public in
accordance with
law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall
publish annually AN itemized LIST OF AMOUNTS PAID TO AND EXPENSES
INCURRED for
each Member.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, the intention here is to prevent the
recurrence of abuses of congressional allowances that occurred in the past.
May I just
cite the reason for this. When we tried to bring the matter to the Supreme
Court, we could not gather any evidence because the reason given was that
in the
practice of the old Congress these amounts were deemed expended and,
therefore, no books of accounts were kept. But the Supreme Court then
ordered the COA
to investigate. There was no itemized list and it was a lump sum simply given
to the Speaker of the House. We could not subpoena the Speaker of the
House
because of the separation of powers. So this is meant to correct that
situation.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: This is a matter of obsenation of the language here: The records
and books of accounts of Congress shall be PRESERVED AND opened. . .
MR. DAVIDE: PRESERVED AND opened to the public. . .
MR. OPLE: We may have to add another BE because the phrase shall be
PRESERVED AND opened . . . just does not sound smooth.
MR. ROMULO: It is accepted.
MR. DAVIDE: May we have again the amendment to the amendment?
MR. OPLE: Lines 11 to 12 will now read: The records and books of accounts
of Congress shall BE PRESERVED AND BE opened to the public. . .
MR. DAVIDE: It is just an insertion of BE.
MS. AQUINO: It was substituted on the condition that the phrase WITHOUT
FORFEITING HIS SEAT is accommodated, if only to underscore the fact that
the
effect of noncompliance of Section 18 is the automatic forfeiture of the
position. Because as originally formulated, Section 18 would seem to be
vague on
the effect of noncompliance. For example, would this mean that one is
automatically deemed to have vacated his position or does it need the
majority vote
of the House to declare that his position is vacated?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I ask a question for clarification?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Lines 29 and 30, as amended read: . . . including
government-owned or controlled corporation, during his TERM WITHOUT
FORFEITING HIS SEAT.
Suppose a Member of Congress resigns, may he then hold any other office?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: After his resignation, may he be appointed?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Then why did the Commissioner change tenure TERM?
MS. AQUINO: The reason is that we are referring to the entire term of four
years.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. If the prohibition is for the whole term, then even if he
resigns, he is still disqualified to hold any office.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, if he resigns from his office, he himself has
forfeited his seat.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: So he can still accept any office because he, by his voluntary
action, forfeits his seat.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. But his term is not yet over.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, his term is not yet over, but he already forfeited his seat.
MR. RODRIGO: But then why was the word tenure changed to TERM?
MR. DAVIDE: Precisely to emphasize the forfeiture of the seat. That was the
original proposal of Commissioner Foz, but we interpreted it to mean that it
was not also necessary to forfeit his seat because his tenure has ended.
MR. RODRIGO: But even if his term has not yet ended and he resigns from his
once, he may be appointed?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because as I said, if he accepts a position without first
resigning, he is deemed to have forfeited his seat; but if he voluntarily
resigns, he himself by his voluntary act forfeits his seat.
MR. RODRIGO: He ended his tenure but not yet his term?
MR. DAVIDE: The tenure is up to the time that he forfeits his seat or he
resigns from office because tenure is actual occupancy of the position.
MR. RODRIGO: Anyway, I think the Committee on Style can take care of this.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee on Style will really repolish the language.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other manifestations? Are we now ready to
vote?
Is there any objection to the proposed amendments of Commissioner Aquino
on Section 18 which have been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The
Chair hears
none; the amendments are approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On Section 29 (1), Madam President, we have two amendments
which the Committee has accepted. The first is the amendment of
Commissioner Monsod
which is on line 25 consisting of the insertion of the phrase EXPENDITURES
AND SOURCES OF FINANCING, INCLUDING before receipts and the deletion
of the
phrase based on and its substitution with the word FROM. On the same
line 27, after the word measures, put a period (.) and delete the word
and. On
line 28, delete the words of expenditures, so that Section 25 (1) will now
read as follows: The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty
days from the opening of each regular session, as the basis of the general
appropriation bill, a budget of EXPENDTURES AND SOURCES OF FINANCING,
INCLUDING
receipts FROM existing and proposed revenue measures.
MR. MONSOD: I am not sure about those parts of the budget because usually
these would refer to assistance or what we call program loans that go
through the
budget. But if it is a commodity loan, it may not really be part of the budget
of expenditures on the expenditure side.
MR. OPLE: With respect to the expenditure side, this would include equity
contributions of the Philippine government to government corporations, such
as
the Philippine National Bank, the Development Bank of the Philippines and
other such financial institutions, which I understand have now risen to about
P
19 billion.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, the budget would have several components, and one of
them would be equity contributions to such institutions, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: That is very enlightening.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to these proposed amendments on
Section 25 of Commissioner Monsod? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendments are
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, this is the amendment of Commissioner
Natividad which the Committee has accepted. On the same Section 25 (1)
after
Commissioner Monsods amendment, add a new sentence to read as follows:
THE CONGRESS MAY NOT INCREASE THE APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDED
BY THE PRESIDENT FOR
THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT AS SPECIFIED IN THE BUDGET.
I do not think this would require any explanation because this is in the 1935
Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the sponsor restate the proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: It reads: THE CONGRESS MAY NOT INCREASE THE
APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PRESIDENT FOR THE OPERATION
OF THE GOVERNMENT AS SPECIFIED IN
THE BUDGET.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Natividad which has been accepted by the Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on line 21, the subparagraph should now be
numbered 7 instead of 6 as a consequence.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we beg permission to go back to page 6.
THE PRESIDENT: The sponsor will please proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: On page 6, between lines 17 and 18, insert a new section to be
denominated as SECTION 20. The Committee on Style will do the
resectioning
later.
This is the amendment of Commissioner Ople which the Committee has also
accepted, which reads: SECTION 20. ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND
THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL, UPON ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE, MAKE A FULL
DISCLOSURE OF THEIR FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS INTERESTS. THEY SHALL
NOTIFY THE HOUSE CONCERNED
OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE FILING
OF A PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
MR OPLE: Madam President, just a word of explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople will please proceed.
MR. OPLE: This proposed amendment seeks to build a policy of full disclosure
of the affairs of future Members of Congress. Some members of the
Committee,
during the consultation, actually proposed that the policy of full disclosure
should not be restricted only to Members of the legislature. And in the
spirit of that advice, we hope that in the General Provisions or in the
Declaration of Principles, some such principles can be established to guide
the
conduct of all officials and employees of the government.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I am in favor of the first sentence of this Section 20 regarding
full disclosure by Members of the legislature of their financial and business
interests, but not with regard to the second sentence because it speaks of
proposed legislation.
May we have the second sentence again.
MR. AZCUNA: The second sentence reads: THEY SHALL NOTIFY THE HOUSE
CONCERNED OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT MAY ARISE FROM
THE FILING OF A
PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
MR. PADILLA: I would like to delete that second sentence because it is rather
difficult, if not impossible, to know what are the proposed measures that
will be filed either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. I think it
is enough that there be a full disclosure.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, the second sentence really completes the
intended sense for the entire section.
There is such a rule in the British Parliament, I understand I say I
understand because I have not seen the same rule with respect to the
members of
Congress in the United States-to establish an obligation so that a member of
Congress authoring or sponsoring some legislations which involve, precisely,
the financial and business interests they had disclosed could just make a
manifestation. Among scientists, this is known as confessing ones bias right
at
the start, so that his peers in the community of scholars will know he has a
valued judgment, that he is exonerated from any cheating because he
confessed
it from the start. And, therefore, he adheres to a standard of purity in
scholarship. After that they will appreciate what he says because he has
admitted
some valued judgment at the start.
This amendment is not a bar really to a Member of Congress later on to
sponsor a bill that may actually pertain, in a larger sense, to the business
interest that he has disclosed. A good example is: Let us say I am a coconut
king and I became a Member of the Senate. And I now sponsor a bill creating
a
levy, the proceeds of which will be used to establish a bank. Then under this
provision, I am obliged to say that I am a coconut king but I am filing the
bill, not so much to aggrandize me but the 1,400,000 small coconut farmers.
And, therefore, I can proceed to sponsor that bill. In the full light of the
knowledge of all my colleagues that my biases have been discounted, they
could better appreciate the kernel of my logic or the intrinsic merit of my
standard of rigor with respect to the second sentence, I do not think he will
be covered. But as soon as he starts up his business, he ought to be covered.
MR. BENGZON: Then he will have to disclose as soon as he gets into that
business.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President, that is my own view.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Will the Gentleman from Bulacan yield to a few questions from
the Gentleman from Pampanga?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Like Commissioner Padilla, I find wisdom in the first sentence of the
amendment. The burdensome portion is the second sentence, especially as it
employs
ambiguous terms like POTENTIAL CONFLICT and PROPOSED
LEGISLATION. It speaks of the future or of anticipatory statements, coupled
with the
Commissioners admission, which is very nice of him to say that when one
makes a confession, he gets a prior absolution. In other words, irrespective of
whether or not there is conflict of interest later on since he has already made
the confession, he is absolved. He can go ahead with his project with
impunity. Will the Commissioner kindly tell us I heard about his
observation of the British Parliament about this why he finds absolute
necessity of
coupling the first sentence with the second sentence, Madam President?
MR. OPLE: Yes, in order to build a genuine, meaningful and operational policy
of full disclosure, I think the second sentence has to be retained.
MR. SUAREZ: Notwithstanding the fact that it speaks of something in the
future because of the employment of the words POTENTIAL and
PROPOSED?
MR. OPLE: The potential conflict of interest is precisely the basis for the
Member of Congress notifying his colleagues that in view of his prior
disclosure of financial and business interests, he could not be accused of
Senate
immunizes himself from conflict of interest simply by admitting a bias at the
beginning. But having served notice on his colleagues about the honesty of
his intentions, he forwards his own interest. And if there is any attempt later
on by opposition members, let us say in that Senate, directed to a member
of the majority party to raise a conflict of interest, I think there will be a
presumption in favor of the Senator because he has the courage and the
honesty to admit his own biases at the start of the proceedings.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: In view of the proposal of Commissioner Suarez, the Committee
proposes and, therefore, formally moves that the voting be separate for the
two
sentences.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we restate the first sentence?
MR. DAVIDE: The first sentence would read: ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL, UPON ASSUMPTION OF
OFFICE, MAKE A FULL.
DISCLOSURE OF THEIR FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS INTERESTS.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular proposed
amendment of Commissioner Ople? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: The second sentence would read: THEY SHALL NOTIFY THE
HOUSE CONCERNED OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT MAY
ARISE FROM THE FILING OF A
PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the second sentence of the amendment of
Commissioner Ople, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 20 votes in favor and 14 against; the proposed amendment
is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we have another proposal of Commissioner
Ople which the Committee has accepted.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May I introduce an amendment to that approved amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner proposing an amendment to the new
Section 20?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, I just want to add the phrase OF WHICH HE IS AN AUTHOR
after legislation.
MR. OPLE: Although the Committee has now complete charge, my opinion is
that this is an eminently acceptable amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee accepts.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment. Is there any
objection to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Monsod to Section
20? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the other amendment of Commissioner Ople
that the Committee has accepted would be on page 7, line 10 of Section 22
(2), which
is to delete the phrase each House and to substitute it with the following:
BOTH HOUSES IN JOINT SESSION ASSEMBLED, so that the entire paragraph
will
now read as follows: The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of the Members
of BOTH HOUSES IN JOINT SESSION ASSEMBLED, shall have the sole power to
declare
the existence of a state of war.
MR. RODRIGO: What is meant by two-thirds of the Members of BOTH
HOUSES? The Senators are out numbered more than 3 to I by the Members
of the House of
Representatives. How should it be of each House voting separately?
MR. DAVIDE: This is two-thirds vote of the Members of both Houses in a joint
session, but the counting, I guess, will be separate.
MR. RODRIGO: That must be clarified, not of both Houses but of each House
voting separately.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, the intent of the proponent, as well as of the
Committee, is that there is a joint session assembled but the voting will be
separate.
MR. DAVIDE: So in other words, before shall we insert VOTING SEPARATELY,
so lines 9 to 11 would now read: The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of
the
Members of BOTH HOUSES IN JOINT SESSION ASSEMBLED, VOTING
SEPARATELY, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of
war.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: I may not press the amendment in connection with the
approved section, but I will get the desired clarification from the sponsors
because the
phrase used here is to declare the existence of a state of war. In the 1935
Constitution, the phrase used is sole power to declare war. Will the
sponsor be kind enough to tell us the difference between to declare the
existence of a state of war and the sole power to declare war?
MR. DAVIDE: Commissioner Azcuna will answer for the Committee.
MR. AZCUNA: The change, Madam President, from sole power to declare
war to to declare the existence of a state of war is in line with the
renunciation
of war by the Philippines, so that we will not start a war, but if war is started
on us, then we can declare that it exists. This is the wording of the
1973 Constitution which departed from the 1935 Constitution in order to
emphasize that what we renounce is an instrument of national policy.
MR. SUAREZ: So it is a defensive characteristic.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, it is defensive.
MR. SUAREZ: The existence of a state of war means we are invaded, not us
invading some other country.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, I will not press the amendment.
MR. OPLE: The exercise of the veto power by the President or by the Prime
Minister, under most Constitutions that have come to my knowledge, is
subject to
no restrictions except to the right and the power of the legislature to override
that veto by a two-thirds vote in jurisdictions like the United States and
the Philippines prior to the 1973 Constitution, and even under the 1973
Constitution, through the several permutations in the office of the head of
government from Prime Minister to President, etc. Will this make this
Constitution truly unique in the sense that we are restricting the veto power
of the
President of the Philippines so that there are areas of the budget that he
cannot have access to? Whereas, normally, the procedure would be for the
House
of Representatives and the Senate, acting upon their perceptions that the
budgets of the constitutional commissions ought not to be diminished in any
manner, to proceed to override the veto of the President, here the veto of
one part of the budget does not mean a veto of the whole budget? Does
Commissioner Monsod contemplate that situation where there will be
sacrosanct areas of the budget, inaccessible to the veto power of the
President, the
logic of which is that that veto power can be overturned by a majority or by
two-thirds vote of the Congress where they believe that the budget of the
constitutional commissions ought not to be diminished in any way?
MR. MONSOD: The Commissioner will recall that when the provision giving
fiscal autonomy to the judiciary was presented to the body, we were the
ones who
denied to it the percentage of the budget because, precisely, we wanted the
judiciary to go through the process of budget-making to justify its budget and
to go through the legislature for that justification. But we also said that after
having gone through this process, it should have fiscal autonomy so that
there will be an automatic and regular release of such funds. The whole
purpose of that provision is to protect the independence of the judiciary
while at
the same time not giving the judiciary what we call a position of privilege by
an automatic percentage. However, Madam President, the General
Appropriations Bill is passed only on the basis of a majority vote. And if the
President has the power to veto the appropriation for, say, the judiciary,
then it is a way to destroy, to postpone or to intimidate the judiciary from its
independent role. And what we are saying is it may be true that it may be
overcome by a two-thirds vote of the Members but that is a very significant
difference in the amount of the vote required. And the veto of the President
would only happen, precisely, in those instances where he wants to get back
at the judiciary. Therefore, there would be politics involved in the passage of
the bill in overriding the veto. So my proposed amendment seeks merely to
give the intent of this body full expression so that it is not frustrated by a
veto of the President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President. There is a maxim to which I
subscribe: Independence without interdependence can become a tyranny,
although we are
familiar with the executive tyranny, there are other forms of potential
tyranny that can take the form of a legislative or a judicial tyranny. I believe
in
strengthening the independence of the judiciary. I do not believe in
converting it into an island of privilege in the sense that it be spared the
equal
risks with others in terms of the exercise of the presidential veto. So, Madam
President, I just want to bring forth these necessary observations and to
manifest my intention that I would like to vote against this amendment if
presented to the floor.
Thank you very much.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Chairman of the Legislative Committee is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee would also like to emphasize that the budget is
prepared by the President himself. So he allocates already the operating
expenses
for the government including those for the constitutional commissions. And
as a consequence of the Natividad amendment, the Congress cannot
increase what
is appropriated by the Office of the President for the operation of the
government as specified in the budget. So, necessarily, we feel that there is
no
sense for the President to veto a particular item for the judiciary or the
constitutional commissions which have been granted fiscal autonomy when
he,
himself, is the original proponent of the budget for these entities.
MR. OPLE: If the possibility of veto is so remote and so absurd, why do we
hate to provide this provision in the Constitution?
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: We have to, because there may be some other items in the
appropriations as approved. Perhaps, these may be decreased by the
legislature, and
the President may not agree to a decrease in the appropriations for certain
items regarding the operation of the government.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I support fiscal autonomy for the courts and for the
constitutional bodies so I voted in favor of fiscal autonomy. But my
understanding of
fiscal autonomy is that there is an automatic release of the funds but not
insofar as the appropriation of the funds is concerned. I would like to ask the
sponsor a question. It is true that the President recommends the line-item
budget, but is it possible for the legislature to increase the appropriation
for, let us say, the Commission on Elections or the Commission on Audit?
MR. DAVIDE: Under the Natividad amendment, any appropriation embodied
in the budget for the general operation of the government may not be
increased by the
Congress, which is a restriction also embodied in the 1935 Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Is this only for the executive department?
MR. DAVIDE: No, for the operation of the government.
MR. RODRIGO: So the items are recommended by the President for the
operation of the government.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. for the operation of the government. This would refer,
therefore, to the current operating expenditures of the government, if I am
correct.
MR. RODRIGO: It might not be increased.
MR. DAVIDE: It cannot be increased.
MR. RODRIGO: Can the items be changed without increasing the amount? Let
us say, one item is divided into two or three or two items are merged by the
Congress.
MR. DAVIDE: That can be done by the Congress.
MR. RODRIGO: That can be done. Suppose the President does not like what
the Congress did, can the President not veto? Shall we deprive the President?
I
just want to add that I think due to an overreaction to what Marcos did, we
are emasculating too much the power of the President whom we will elect in
the
future. Let us remember that we are for a presidential system of government
because we believe also in sufficient powers given to the President. We do
not
want to give him too much powers which he can abuse, but let us not
emasculate his powers, otherwise, he will be ineffective.
MR. DAVIDE: In view of the objections, Madam President, we request that the
matter be voted by the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the sponsor please repeat the words to be inserted?
MR. DAVIDE: The words to be inserted between the words but and bill on
line 27, page 9, are the following: EXCEPT APPROPRIATIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL
BODIES GRANTED FISCAL AUTONOMY UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Monsod which has been accepted by the Committee, please raise their hand.
(Few
Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 10 votes in favor and 18 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. DAVIDE: There is one final amendment that has been accepted by the
Committee, Madam President, which is on page 9, line 30, Section 28 (1).
After the
period (.) following the word equitable insert the following sentence that
was recommended by Commissioner Ople: THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, IN
THE EXERCISE
OF THEIR TAXATION POWER, SHALL CONFORM TO THIS STANDARD. So that
the entire Section 28 (1) will now read as follows: The rule of taxation shall
be
uniform and equitable. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, IN THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR TAXATION POWER, SHALL CONFORM TO THIS STANDARD The Congress
shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I just want to ask a question.
R.C.C. NO. 38
Thursday, July 24, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:44 a. m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Decoroso R. Rosales.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. ROSALES: Almighty and benevolent God, with bowed heads and humble
hearts, we fervently beseech Thee to baptize this Assembly with the fire of
the Holy
Spirit, that we may be enlightened and inspired to formulate a new Charter
that would truly embody and enshrine the dreams, sentiments, ideals and
aspirations of our suffering people. Grant this to us, O Most Merciful Lord.
Holy Virgin, Mother of God, at whose behest our Lord, Jesus Christ, performed
the first miracle at the wedding celebration in Cana, with bended knees, we
pray for Thy Motherly intercession and invoke Thine aid. Mater Christi Ora Pro
Nobis. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: We wish to acknowledge with thanks the presence of the
grade school students of St. Scholasticas College and we wish to assure
them that
the Commission is drafting a fundamental law which will ensure a peaceful
future for our youth and for the generations to come.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present *
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present *
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present *
Gascon
Present *
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolution on First
Reading, and Communications, the President making the corresponding
references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 532, entitled:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE PROFOUND APPRECIATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR FREE
ELECTIONS (NAMFREL) FOR THE INVALUABLE
ASSISTANCE IN ORGANIZING PROVINCIAL CONSULTATIONS.
Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento, Villacorta and Quesada.
To the Steering Committee.
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from the (Southern) Philippines Physics Society, signed by its
President, Mr. Gerardo C. Maxino, seeking to convert the Philippine Atomic
Energy Commission into a constitutional body.
(Communication No. 288 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Judge Delilah Vidallon Magtolis of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Metro Manila, Branch XLI, Quezon City, addressed to the Honorable Cirilo A.
Rigos, proposing a constitutional provision on the teaching of religion in
public elementary schools and high schools.
(Communication No. 289 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Roque B. Dajao of Mantahan, Maasin, Southern Leyte,
proposing a provision to make mandatory the establishment of vocational
schools
(secondary and college level) in all capital towns of the country.
(Communication No. 290 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from the Philippine Chamber of Communications, Inc., signed by Mr.
Santiago Morales of Room 525, SMS Bldg., 120 Juan Luna, Binondo, Manila,
suggesting a constitutional provision that only citizens of the Philippines shall
be allowed to sit in the governing body of any public utility and no
foreigner or corporation, association, or any other entity which is not wholly
owned by Filipinos shall be allowed to manage, control, administer or
operate public utilities.
(Communication No. 291 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Resolution from the Philippine Federation of Savings and Loan Banks, Inc.,
Room 306, Puso ng Maynila Bldg., corner U.N. Avenue and Mabini Street,
Ermita,
Manila, signed by its President, Noli B. Bajada, and other Members of the
Board of Directors, proposing a constitutional provision which would inculcate
credit worthiness in the youth.
(Communication No. 292-Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Resolution No. 07, S. 1986, of the Southern Philippine Muslim Youth
Association, c/o P.O. Box 5452, Iligan City, signed by its national Chairman,
Datu
Camad M. Ali, urging consideration and full implementation of the Bangsa
Moro Autonomous Government within the framework of the national
sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Philippines.
(Communication No. 293 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from Mr. Ernesto P. Tupas of Rosal-Grande Sts., TWHA Village, Dumoy,
Toril, Davao City, suggesting that the filing and payment of income tax be
embodied in the Constitution.
two months after consultation with the legislature and that the President
cannot dissolve the legislature.
(Communication No. 299 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Legislative.
Letter from Ms. Charito Apao de la Pea of 749 Capistrano Street, Molave,
Zamboanga del Sur, proposing the retention of the U.S. military bases for
economic and security reasons; a federal form of government; and the
principle of self-determination regarding the Sabah issue.
(Communication No. 300 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Antonio S. Rodriguez of Baclay, Tukuran, Zamboanga del Sur,
suggesting that the Members of the Commission on Elections and the
Commission
on Audit be appointed by civic and religious groups to make them truly
independent.
(Communication No. 301 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Esmeraldo M. Ignacio of 102 Sta. Maria Norte, Binalonan,
Pangasinan, suggesting that theft of fruits, root crops, and other vegetables
be
given a heavier penalty.
(Communication No. 302 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and
Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Mr. Arsenio D. Castillo of 14 Loans St., GSIS Village, Project 8,
Quezon City, Metro Manila, saying that the present electoral system is the
root of the evils and difficulties that now plague the country, and proposing
an electoral system whereby the leaders in each barangay shall elect the
barangay chairman; the barangay chairmen shall elect the municipal mayor
from among themselves; the municipal mayors shall elect the provincial
governor
from among themselves; and the provincial governors shall elect the
President also from among themselves to minimize expenses on the part of
the government
and the candidates.
(Communication No. 303 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Position paper of BAGUHIN (Citizens Movement for Continuing Change),
signed by the members of its national directorate, on the tenure of the office
of
President Corazon C. Aquino and Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel.
(Communication No. 304 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Pio B. Campaner from BASICA United Veterans-VFP, Inc.,
Bagong Silang, Caloocan City, Metro Manila, suggesting that a voter whose
name is
omitted from the voters list of the precinct where he registered be allowed to
vote upon presentation of a voters affidavit, with his picture attached,
duly signed by the members of the board of election inspectors; and
suggesting the grant of a life pension to veterans who are 65 years old and
above.
(Communication No. 305 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Juan F. de Jesus of 936 Del Monte Avenue, San Francisco del
Monte, Quezon City, proposing that elected barangay officials elect the
municipal mayor, vice-mayor, and councilors, who will then elect the
provincial governor, vice-governor, and board members, who in turn will
elect the
congressmen of the different districts of the province, who will in turn elect
the President and Vice-President.
(Communication No. 306 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from Mr. E. Garcia of 985 Padilla St., San Miguel, Manila, for the
Kilusang Pangkalahatan Kaunlaran (KPK), submitting a position paper,
entitled:
Constitutional Requirements for Genuine Land Reform.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, after the conference with the leadership of the
Commission. I withdraw my amendment on the assurance that this matter
and the
purpose for which I presented the amendment will be taken up in the
ordinance to be appended later.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the honorable Chairman say?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, indeed this matter can be resolved in the
proposed ordinance to be appended to the Constitution with respect to the
division
of the entire Philippines into legislative districts.
MR. RAMA: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Who will be the next?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, let me explain first our procedure.
We are now discussing section by section the proposed amendments which
the Committee did not accept yesterday.
The next proponent should be Commissioner Lerum but he wishes to waive
his position until the discussion on the party list system comes up. So, the
next is
Commissioner Gascon. May he be recognized, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Madam President.
My amendment is on Section 2, line 12. After the words at large, insert the
phrase THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM; so, the whole section will read: The
Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at
large, THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM, by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, as
may be provided by law.
Basically, the spirit of this amendment is to at least give assurance that the
Senate will not be dominated by one or, maybe, two parties alone. The party
list system would assure as much proportionate representation in this august
body. I believe that through this system in the Senate, we can at least
approximate a democratization of our legislative system by encouraging
even small parties which would perhaps lose if they were to be pitted against
large
well-oiled political parties in an election for the Senate on a winner-take-all
basis. With a party list system, even the small political parties with
political aspirations and ideals and which could be supported by a substantial
bloc of the electorate could perhaps be assured of certain seats. For
example, if the seats for election were to be 24 at one time, a particular
party would need only 4.2 percent of the votes to be assured of one seat. If
the
seats for election were to be 12, a particular party would only need 8.3
percent of the votes; and if the seats for election were to be 8, a particular
party to be assured of one seat will only need 12.5 percent of the seats.
Definitely, the larger and well-oiled political parties would be assured of more
seats; however, we are encouraging smaller parties to compete evenly with
these large political parties in that arena. That is the basic spirit of this
proposal.
With regard to sectoral representation, I support Commissioner Lerums
option to even assert that there should also be sectoral representation in the
Senate on the basic principle that we must democratize the legislative body.
I feel that a party list system could suffice also if we will be bogged down
by the mechanics of sectoral representation on the Senate level, so that
certain sectors could proclaim certain political parties adhering to their
interests, or even multisectoral bodies could unite and form one major
political party. These are some ideas in my mind: The only point I would like
to
assert here is let us try, when we are implementing this bicameral system,
to veer away from a two-party system and to encourage a multiparty setup
to as
much a degree as possible.
We know for a fact that a bicameral system encourages a two-party system.
It encourages the two largest or two most well-oiled and well-moneyed
parties to
dominate while the other political parties will be left in the dustbin of history.
We have a commitment to various peoples organizations that have
asserted their interests in the past 20 years to assure them that even the
Senate could be an arena where they can compete.
Thank you.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, may I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: May I request that we defer discussion on sectoral
representation until after we have finished the freewheeling discussion on
the party list
system?
My first reason is that said sentence does not appear in the 1935
Constitution but was inserted in the 1973 Constitution I think it is
unnecessary.
Moreover, the House or the Senate is not the bondsman or the custodian of
the Member affected thereby. Will the Committee accept the proposal?
MR. DAVIDE: First of all, we would like to find out if Commissioner Padilla will
not insist on the other proposals he made on this particular section.
MR. PADILLA: No, I still have a few more amendments, but that is the first
one on this Section 17.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee accepts the proposed amendment on Section
17 which consists in the deletion of the semicolon (;) after the word session
on line
19 and all the words thereafter from lines 19 to 23 up to the period (.)
following the word so.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: This is in connection with Section 17. May I just know from
the Committee the offenses punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment
because in the 1935 Constitution the exceptions were specified treason,
felony and breach of the peace? In the 1973 Constitution, we have the same
provision on offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment.
Just for purposes of clarification, may I know these offenses?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, may we first vote on the Padilla proposal
which the Committee accepted?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman is asking first for a vote on the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Padilla.
Is there any objection to this particular amendment? (Silence) The Chair
hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: On the same Section 17, line 18, I propose to insert OR SEARCH
between the words arrest and while so that that privilege is from arrest
OR SEARCH while the Congress is in session.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the principal purpose or the rationale of this
section is to make the Member of the Senate or the House of Representatives
immune from arrest in order that he should not be prevented from attending
to his duty as a Member of such House. But certainly the act of searching will
not prevent him from attending. So I think this is also the philosophy why
search was not included in both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions. So we
feel
that the provision without the amendment would be adequate enough to
protect the Member of either the Senate or the House of Representatives
while
performing his official duty. We regret, therefore, that we have to decline the
proposal
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, the provision penalizing violation of
parliamentary immunity under Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code
mentions both arrest
or search of any Member thereof. Some jurisprudence hold that the right to
arrest would include the right to search. But I believe that the express
mention
of search would make the privilege of a Member of Congress clearer and
more emphatic while attending sessions or meetings.
I thought that my proposal to include OR SEARCH after arrest was
acceptable to the Committee yesterday.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee had to reassess its position after the
explanation of Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: What is the explanation of Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RODRIGO: Our Chairman had already articulated my opinion very well. I
did not know about any commitment yesterday. I did not sit with the
Committee
yesterday, but when Commissioner Padilla proposed the amendment, the
Chairman asked me for my reaction and I told him that the philosophy
behind this
provision which prohibits arrest of a Member of Congress during session is to
prevent anybody from preventing this Member of Congress from attending
the
session thus leaving his constituents without any representation in Congress.
So, it was limited to arrest in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The word
search will not prevent a Member of Congress from attending the session.
MR. PADILLA: That is correct physically. But suppose the Member of Congress
has certain documents, papers, arguments in writing, which he may want to
use
in expressing his opinions and in casting his vote in his attendance of the
meetings or the sessions of the Congress, why should those documents or
papers
be searched and seized from him while in session?
MR. RODRIGO: Before a search warrant is issued, the judge examines
witnesses and specifies the documents. So, it is very remote that a judge will
issue a
search warrant including documents which a Member of Congress needs in
his work as a Member of Congress. Granting that such documents are
included, the
Member of Congress can always go to the judge and tell him: May I
withdraw this temporarily under receipt because I need this in the
deliberations of
Congress which I will attend.
MR. PADILLA: This right of parliamentary immunity does not consider a
judicial process. This is, in fact, far richer and greater than the freedom of
speech. This is an exceptional provision in the Constitution in favor of the
Members of Congress, so that they can express themselves freely without
any
liability for any speech that they utter in the halls of Congress. This is
parliamentary immunity. This is even stronger than the freedom of speech.
There
must be absolute right of the Members of Congress to speak freely without
any danger of being questioned in any other place. We cannot subject the
parliamentary immunity to the ordinary process of a private person going to
the judge to secure a writ of search and seizure against another party or a
corporation. This is different. This is of a higher level of immunity.
MR. RODRIGO: I think this parliamentary immunity does not attach to the
first sentence of Section 17. It attaches to the last sentence of Section 17.
The
first sentence says:
A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from
arrest
while the Congress is in session.
That is a privilege from arrest during the session so that a Member of
Congress will not be prevented from attending the session and representing
his
constituents therein. Parliamentary immunity does not emanate from that
sentence but from the last sentence which reads:
A Member shall not be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for
any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
MR. PADILLA: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: The Commissioners proposed amendment regarding search
is in the first sentence, not in the last sentence. So, the matter of
parliamentary
immunity is immaterial in this discussion.
MR. PADILLA: The substance of parliamentary immunity is really the last
sentence.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: And the last sentence is dependent on the attendance to the
deliberations of Congress.
MR. RODRIGO: But search will not prevent the Member from attending the
session.
MR. PADILLA: The essence of parliamentary immunity is the last sentence.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: I was going to make this right even stronger by making it in the
negative in my next proposal.
The essence of parliamentary immunity is that the Congressman or Senator
should be absolutely free to state his opinion even if it be libelous or
unfounded. There must be absolute freedom of expression in the halls of
Congress. But, of course, a Member of Congress cannot exercise his absolute
right
or freedom of speech unless he attends the session. That is why the real
substance or essence of parliamentary immunity is the last sentence. But the
last
sentence is based on the first sentence that the Member of Congress shall
have the right to attend the session or its meetings and I was going to
add,
as in the provision of the Penal Code, also to express his opinion and to cast
his vote without fear. As to the right or freedom of speech, jurisprudence
holds without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment. But in
parliamentary immunity, it goes further than that. He cannot be questioned
in
any other place for any speech or words he has uttered during the
deliberations of Congress.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Just one sentence, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: It is true that the right of the Member of Congress to speak
during session is dependent on the first sentence and that he be able to
attend.
What can prevent him from attending? Is it arrest? But search will not
prevent him from attending. So, that is my argument.
MR. PADILLA: The mere physical presence of attending is not significant.
What is important is that in attending the session, he has absolute freedom
to
express his opinion and to cast his vote independent of any possible scrutiny
or liability. A Member who physically attends should not be deprived of such
documents or other papers which will be the basis of the expression of his
opinions and the casting of his vote. Even if those documents are considered
to
be communist-inspired or even if branded illegal or unlawful, I think a
Member of Congress under parliamentary immunity has more rights than a
citizen in
the exercise of the freedom of speech.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear now from Commissioner Suarez?
MR. RODRIGO: One more sentence, Madam President. I say that that is very
improbable to happen and the proof is that the word search was not in
both the
1935 and 1973 Constitutions, and no Member of the Batasan had even
complained that he was searched and some documents were taken from him
so it diminished
his effectiveness in debating or talking in session.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: May we now hear from Commissioner Suarez?
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the distinguished Vice-President answer a few clarificatory questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla may answer, if he so desires.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, gladly.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
May I look at it from the other side of the coin. The Commissioners proposal
is to vest unto a parliamentarian on his way to the session the freedom from
search. This would contemplate a situation where an Assemblyman from
Pampanga, for example, coming from Clark Air Base is reported to have in
his car some
hand grenades, some unlicensed firearms, a kilo of heroine and maybe some
jewelries which were funneled from the Clark Air Force Base. Would the
Commissioner still grant immunity from search to that parliamentarian?
MR. PADILLA: The provision regarding the attendance in the sessions of the
Congress and in going to and returning from the same was specifically
indicated
in both Constitutions. Unfortunately that particular provision was omitted in
the present text. I propose the reinstatement of that provision because it is
more extensive than the phrase while the Congress is in session, although
it might cover the same situation. The privilege should not be limited to the
right of the Member of Congress to attend the session but the privilege
against arrest should include the word SEARCH, and should not be limited to
the
phrase in going to and returning from the same.
So, in the Commissioners example, if the Congressman is in his house at
night and he keeps heroine, drugs or unlicensed firearms, or any other
unlawful
materials, I do not believe that this exemption should apply even if the
Senate or the Congress is in session.
MR. SUAREZ: No. Precisely, the situation I envisioned is going to attend the
session.
MR. PADILLA: In the Commissioners example, it is going to and returning.
Yes, for that brief moment, he should be.
he is going to
the session hall.
Another question. The purpose of search for evidence is basically for
perpetuating the evidence and holding it in custodia legis in the event of
future
criminal prosecution. Considering the fact that as envisioned now in our
Article on the Legislative the Congress is in session virtually the whole year
round except for one month before the adjournment, would that not thereby
defeat the purpose of perpetuating the evidence since during that entire
period
of Congress being in session for around 11 months there may be a possibility
that vital evidence may be spirited out or may no longer be available to the
judicial authorities if and when criminal prosecution is instituted against that
legislator?
MR. PADILLA: That is why I was saying that the provision in the 1935 and
1973 Constitutions which has been deleted should reappear; namely, during
his
attendance at its sessions, and in going to and returning from the same.?
Moreover, this exemption is not absolute. It only covers offenses whose
penalty
is less than six years prision mayor.
MR. REGALADO: In other words, the Commissioner would want the phrase in
the present proposed Article while Congress is in session to be replaced by
the
1935 provision?
MR. PADILLA: That is correct. That is also the provision repeated in the 1973
Constitution.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: One clarificatory question. I would like to address this to
Commissioner Padilla and perhaps to the Chair also. This has to do with the
interpretation of in going to and coming from the same. Commissioner
Padillas interpretation, as I understand him and correct me if I am wrong
is
only the time during which the Assemblyman is in transit, either to or from.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I add a confusing note to this provision by asking this
question: By way of example, while I was serving in the First Regular
Batasang
Pambansa, I was representing the Province of Cebu. Will this clause going to
and coming from the session cover the period starting from the legislative
district to the session, or will this only cover that period from the residence of
the Congressman in Metro Manila to the session and back?
MR. PADILLA: The 1935 and 1973 Constitutions speak of freedom from arrest
during his attendance in sessions and in going to and returning from the
same.
So, it is not limited to the physical time of going to and from the Congress,
but the main thing is his attendance at the sessions of the Congress.
MR. MAAMBONG: My question really is: What is the point of origin and the
point of termination of that immunity? I refer back to what I said earlier.
I represented the Province of Cebu. I actually live in Asturias, Cebu, 78
kilometers from the City of Cebu. When I go to the session, I have to take a
car
to the City of Cebu where I take a plane at Mactan Airport for Manila. I alight
at the Manila Domestic Airport, go to my residence and then proceed to the
session.
Will this cover the time I leave Asturias, Cebu up to the time I reach the
session? That is the point.
MR. PADILLA: It covers all that period and more, in the sense that anything
that would prevent the legislators attendance to the sessions of Congress is
prohibited.
MR. MAAMBONG: We now go to the next point. In the previous
administration, we had general orders which authorize military personnel to
establish
checkpoints. At one such instance during the session of the First Regular
Batasang Pambansa, former MP Jolly Fernandez from Masbate articulated on
the
floor his complaint that when he came out of the Batasan area, there was a
checkpoint somewhere in Don Mariano Marcos Avenue and his car was
subjected to
search in spite of the fact that his car carried the Batasang Pambansa sticker,
he being a Member of Parliament.
At the present setting, I also understand that there are internal rules when
we enter various subdivisions. If we do not reside there, the security guards
will thoroughly ask us to open the trunk of our car. How would the
attending the session the following day, he may be released early morning,
yet he had already been arrested.
MR. PADILLA: That is not my position.
MR. DAVIDE: May I just continue, Madam President. In the matter of search
again, it should be clearly stated here that if the proposal is allowed, we
would
grant a member of the legislative immunity from search even if he really had
committed a crime. So, we will allow him to enjoy his special privilege of
committing offenses but immune from both arrest and search. Basically, the
reason for this is not to prevent the member from attending, and that the
search
will not prevent him from attending.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, will the Gentleman comment on my
question as to the point of origin and point of termination of the immunity?
Does it cover
the legislative district up to the place of session?
MR. DAVIDE: It will depend; we will have to inquire into the factual basis. For
instance, if the sessions of the Congress will be from Monday to Friday and
the Gentleman goes home to his residence in Asturias, Cebu on a Friday
afternoon, that is still covered. But if he returns to Manila the following day
for
some other business with the intention of going back again to Cebu that
Sunday, he can be arrested on a Saturday because he did not come here to
attend a
particular session. That is precisely the danger.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Vice-President, Commissioner Padilla, yield to some
questions?
MR. PADILLA: Very gladly.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo may proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
kind
of crime.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, would the Chairman of the Committee and
the Committee be allowed to react on the quotation read into the Record by
Commissioner Nolledo?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: That particular quotation, Madam President and members of the
Commission, will apply only to the last sentence of Section 17 which says:
. . . A member shall not be questioned nor be held liable in any other place
for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
It has no application to the first sentence referring to immunity from arrest.
MR. NOLLEDO: The words of J.B.L. Reyes, if the Gentleman will find out, are
equated with outside pressure also. So, if that opinion applies under the
second sentence, it may with equal force also apply with respect to the first
sentence because it may turn out that the speeches uttered by the Member
of
Congress may result in incurring the ire of outside politicians who are
powerful, and may then subject such Member to search in the near future in
order to
fish for evidence that may be used in the prosecution of the Member of
Congress.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now on this proposed amendment?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, the decision in Osmea vs. Pendatun was
cited. I was the counsel of Osmea who brought this matter to the Supreme
Court
because as will be recalled, Senator Osmea delivered a speech on twelvemillion reasons which was considered by President Garcia derogatory,
insulting and
libelous against him. The House investigated, and I and others appeared for
Osmea. We were then both in the Liberal Party. The decision of the House
was
that the suspension was lawful because it violated the provision against
disorderly behavior which I think was not the issue. The issue was whether,
based
on that privilege speech, he could be suspended, and that involved the
question of parliamentary immunity. So, when we speak of parliamentary
immunity, we
cannot say that it applies only to the last sentence and does not apply to the
first sentence because all this is parliamentary immunity. The whole section
is on parliamentary immunity. I would agree that the substance or the more
important is the last sentence, and a member cannot be questioned because
he has
absolute freedom of expression. But he cannot have absolute freedom of
expression unless he also has the freedom, we might say, absolute, except
when he
commits an offense punishable by prision mayor or more, that he be free
from arrest and, I would also say, free from search. If a Member of Congress
commits murder, that is punishable by an afflictive penalty, more than
prision mayor. He is not entitled to this privilege against arrest or search.
This
refers only to offenses that are punishable by correctional penalties or light
penalties in the Penal Code for not more than six years. So, it is not
correct to say that because we want to include search to arrest, a member of
Congress can abuse this, commit a crime, and yet be free from search or
arrest. So, the privilege is limited by the nature or the gravity of the offense
of which he is charged.
I also do not agree with the paraphrasing of the Committee Chairman that I
said he can be arrested at night but must be released before morning. I
never
said that because precisely a Congressman or a Senator cannot be arrested
because he will be deprived of his absolute right to attend the sessions, to
express with absolute freedom his opinions, and to freely cast his vote. For
any remark or speech uttered during the sessions or the meetings of its
subcommittees, he cannot be questioned, and he has no liability whatsoever
because that is the essence of parliamentary immunity.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear from Commissioner Rosales?
MR. ROSALES: May I contribute my humble opinion on this question of
immunity. The provisions in the 1935 and .1973 Constitutions mean that
when the
Congress is in session, the provision on immunity is absolute. Whether a
Congressman or a Senator is sleeping, whether it is Saturday or Sunday, as
long as
the Congress is in regular session, the immunity from arrest of Congressmen
and Senators is absolute. That provision which refers to the coming to or
returning from the session refers not to during the session; it refers to when
the regular session is adjourned. When a Congressman or a Senator goes to
his province, on his way, that immunity still extends. When the session is
again reconvened and he comes from his own province, on his way to Manila,
the
rate. And there is a limitation. The increment cannot exceed the actual
collections. In other words, it is a pay-as-you-go system. They cannot exceed
actual collections, additional collections that they are able to raise in the
current year. In other words, they cannot put the government in debt or in
deficit. The appropriation is only limited to the actual collections. But this
will enable the government to operate normally, while Congress has not
enacted a general appropriations law. When the Congress enacts a general
appropriations law, then the new appropriations law will then operate. This
will just give the government a chance to operate normally, Madam
President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Commissioner Guingona of the Committee would like to ask
some clarificatory questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
I wonder if the Gentleman could kindly explain the meaning of the word
increment. Would this include foreign grants or foreign borrowings that are
obtained?
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President. I am limiting it to revenues collected.
MR. GUINGONA: Revenues by the government?
MR. MONSOD: Yes. In other words, these are fiscal collections.
MR. GUINGONA: Fiscal collections.
MR. MONSOD: That is right, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Presumably, most of these would be collected by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: But, of course, these increments need not be necessarily
used in favor of these two agencies. In other words, they can be spread out
to other
agencies of the government.
there will already be money for the operation of the government, only it will
be limited until the new appropriations bill is enacted into law.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: May I respond to that, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Gentleman may proceed.
MR. MONSOD: I am not disputing the fact that there will be an appropriation.
All I am saying is that the operation of the government should not be
hampered
by inaction on the part of Congress. By the way, one other reason for
proposing this provision is to put an incentive on Congress to act on the
appropriations law and not use the inaction in order to put pressure or to try
to impose itself on the other bodies of government.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the Commissioner answer a few clarificatory questions?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
I do not know much about government auditing but as I understand it, unless
there is an appropriation, there is no right on the part of the government to
make disbursements. Is that correct? That is the basic fundamental rule.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Here we have a situation where there is no general
appropriations bill that had been passed by Congress. As a result of that
failure, the
general appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year should govern the
ensuing fiscal year. Is my understanding correct?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: So, under the proposal of the Gentleman, we have a situation
where we do not have a general appropriations bill for the coming year and,
therefore, we are obligated to follow the general appropriations law that was
passed the preceding year but we have additional funds or increment, as the
Gentleman calls them. Is that the situation the Gentleman has in mind?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: For this increment which is in excess of what was provided in
the general appropriations bill for the last year, there is no precise
appropriation for it?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, there is no appropriation for it precisely because the
appropriations bill for the current year has not been acted on by the
legislature.
MR. SUAREZ: Right. Then how can we dispose of these increments without a
general appropriations bill or a special appropriations bill disposing of those
increments?
MR. MONSOD: That is the reason I am proposing the amendments because
without the constitutional provision the government would have no right to
disburse on
the basis of the previous appropriation. So, this exception is sought to be
included here precisely for that purpose. It is possible that Congress will not
act on the new appropriations bill for the year, which has happened in the
past.
MR. SUAREZ: That is all right. We have the money, only we do not know how
to disburse it. That is the effect of a failure to pass a general appropriations
bill; there is also an increment, as the Gentleman calls it.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President. In the normal functioning of the
government, for example, we need funds not only for current operating
expenses but also
for current maintenance expenses like infrastructure, which cannot wait. And
there is a natural increase of expenditures from year to year, if only because
of inflation.
MR. SUAREZ: Does the Gentleman not think that without a specific
appropriations bill, these increments could be abused by those in the
administration?
MR. MONSOD: That is why I said I would be willing to accept a reservation
which provides that the funds are subject to proportionate distribution
among the
items. We can even put safeguards by giving the COA certain rights to look
into the expenditures on a preaudit basis. In other words, as long as the
safeguards are there, it is all right. What we want to avoid is a situation
Commissioner
Monsod is very well-placed and well-reasoned. There is, however, the
principle that the legislature controls the purse, and that is the strength of a
legislature relative to a very powerful other branch of the government, which
is the executive. In this instance, the amendment I suppose contemplates a
situation where, although the same budget is automatically made effective
for the new fiscal year, the executive branch, in effect, can appropriate more
than that budget by means of increased revenue collections. Is that the
concept, Madam President?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, perhaps I will say yes but only in the
context of an exceptional case where Congress does not act on the
appropriations bill.
MR. OPLE: It would still vest an appropriations power in the executive during
this interval that no new budget is passed by the Congress.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President. Precisely because Congress has not
exercised or has not, we might call, done its work of appropriating because
an
appropriations bill normally should be approved before the start of the year.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President, but the responsibility for a stalled budget is
normally two-sided rather than a unilateral one. The delay could be
attributed both to a slow-moving Congress and perhaps, the intractability of
some of the ministers of the government who refuse to agree to certain
necessary cuts, at least as perceived by Congress and, therefore, the
bargaining process gets prolonged over the intended deadline. What disturbs
me is the
principle that the legislature controls the purse. It is the sole appropriating
branch among the three branches, and it was for that reason that earlier,
in the matters of the automatic appropriations of two percent of the national
budget for the judiciary, I think we raised signals of alarm that the power
of the legislature to appropriate was being subjected to some subtle invasion
from some other branches. However, if the proponent will agree that such an
appropriations authority, temporarily exercised by the executive, will be
subject to law, then there is participation by the Congress even if only in a
concurrent capacity. But I think it will help settle the principle that the
appropriations authority continues to reside in the legislative power.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I am willing to accept an amendment that
the conditions under which such increments will be allowed be subject to law.
MR. OPLE: And regarding the principle of the appropriations authority
temporarily exercised by the executive with respect to increments of
revenues over
the previous budget, would the Gentleman also agree that the amendment
should include that?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, I think it is quite clear that it will be an exceptional case.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the Committee, Commissioner Davide, is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee feels that the proposed amendment would not
be necessary, and the following are our reasons: At no time will the
government be
without a budget for any given year. Firstly, the session of the Congress is
proposed to begin on the fourth Monday of July of every year. Immediately,
Congress will act on the budget for the succeeding year. So, take the case of
the years 1987 and 1988. We now have a budget for 1986 which was
approved in
September or October of 1985. So, for the budget of the year 1987, Congress
will enact that budget immediately after the convening of Congress on the
fourth Monday of July 1986.
If Congress cannot act on that budget until the end of 1986, the budget for
1986 will be the controlling budget for 1987 and government, on the basis of
the budget for 1986, can use all the resources that it may have, all the
revenues that it may have collected for the year 1987 until Congress shall
have
enacted the budget for 1987.
If there is a need for an incremental increase over the budget of the
preceding year, meaning the budget for 1986, for purposes of the operations
of the
government for 1987, Congress itself may enact a special appropriations
measure under its authority under this particular proposed section. If there is
really a need by reason of the urgency of that particular special
appropriations measure, the President himself may certify for its early
approval. So,
there is really no problem where the government may have no budget
whatsoever.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, if there is no problem and there is no
possibility that the government will not be hampered by a budget that is
smaller than
the current needs because of inflation or other reasons, then why do we have
this Article? This Article precisely provides for a situation where the
legislature does not act. All I am saying is that the provision is inadequate if
the intention is to allow the government to operate normally. And the
Congress can itself define the situations where an increment would be
allowed in case they do not act, but to leave a vacuum in there and all the
government can really use is just the budget for the previous year, which
from experience is always inadequate for a succeeding year, would be to
hamper
the normal operations of the government.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the provision of the 1973 Constitution
allowing this reenactment of the previous budget was just a reaction to the
old
Congress.
The Gentleman will recall that the old Congress met for only 100 days; we
did not then speak of calendar years but fiscal years. The sessions of the old
Congress began on the fourth Monday of January, but the fiscal year was
supposed to begin July of that particular year up to June of the following year.
Because of the 100-day session, there were instances when the budget could
not be approved by Congress. But that is not the situation now. Nevertheless,
if
the same provision is adopted that is, the reenactment of the budget it
is probably to answer a very, very abnormal situation where the Congress
cannot
approve a budget from July up to December of a given year, referring to the
budget for the succeeding year.
Therefore, we say that with that period of six months from July to December,
say, of 1986, the Congress is expected to act on the budget for the year
1987.
But in the event it cannot, despite the length of time, then the budget for the
current year will be deemed reenacted or will be considered as the
operational budget for the succeeding year. Again, if there is the danger of,
say, inflation and there is a need for additional appropriations, Congress
itself, being a continuing body, being a working Congress, can immediately
act a special appropriations measure which can be accomplished in a matter
of
days especially if certified by the President.
MR. MONSOD: The Gentleman is saying that the situation of inaction by the
legislature would not operate. But the situation we are trying to avoid is
precisely when Congress does not act. How can we then assume that
Congress will act on a special appropriations measure that is endorsed or
certified by
the President?
This we did in earlier years very high tariffs for finished products and
what we got was industry that was only engaged in assembly and packaging
operations. On the other hand, an economic program would naturally
rationalize the system of tariffs in order to make sure that we have a good
industrial
structure.
We are not taking away any power from Congress. We are just saying that as
a frame of reference, the authority and the limits prescribed should be
consistent with the economic program of government which the legislature
itself approves.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee accepts the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the proposal.
MR. BENGZON: I have a question, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: The economic program of government is prepared by the
executive department, is it not?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, and it is presented to the National
Assembly and concurred in by the National Assembly or legislature.
MR. BENGZON: Therefore, the economic program must first be changed if
Congress wishes to pass a law that would authorize the President to fix
within
specified limits this Section 2. If the Gentlemans amendment is accepted,
then Congress is hampered by the economic program which they have
approved
before and, therefore, they would have to change that economic program
before they can pass a law which may differ from such economic program.
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President. The economic program may not have
the specifics of each product in each case; but the Congress, under this
section, may go
into details. So, the economic program the frame of reference may be
impaired but we need not change it because that does not go into as much
detail as
this paragraph here.
MR. BENGZON: What I am really trying to drive at is under that system,
would not the executive be controlling Congress in that respect?
MR. MONSOD: No, because the power in approving the program starts from
Congress. We just want to avoid a situation where the mandates under this
paragraph
are not in the context of the economic program. We just want it as a frame of
reference.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Monsod consider a slight amendment by
transposition?
MR. MONSOD: The Gentleman will please state his proposal.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
I share the concern as expressed by Commissioner Bengzon about the
relationship between the economic development program and the powers of
Congress. But I
think Commissioner Bengzon himself will not mind if there is a transposition
so that the power of the Congress is not immediately subjected to
modification
by an economic program.
I propose that the paragraph be left intact, but at the end of this sentence
following or imposts on line 5, there is a comma (,) and a new clause
WITHIN
THE FRAMEWORK OF THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
Will that satisfy the concerns of both Commissioner Bengzon and
Commissioner Monsod?
MR. MONSOD: I accept the amendment, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I make a comment on the words used by
Commissioner Ople OF THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: It was a term used and overused during the past
administration, so maybe we can use another term, not national
development program.
MR. OPLE: National development program is somewhat broader and more
conformable to the scope of the duties of the National Economic
Development Authority
than merely saying economic program. I think this is the formal
phraseology used in government by the NEDA itself. The NEDA is spelled out
as National
Economic and Development Authority, and I think the meaning given to
development is broader than merely the economic part, strictly speaking.
I have no objection to any attempts to improve upon the language national
development program which I think is broader than the economic program
originally suggested, and which puts within the purview of this section social
considerations as well as the claims of labor, the claims of farmers, the
claims of small business as against big business. All those are comprehended
within the broader phrase, within the framework of the national development
program.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, actually the national development program
that Commissioner Ople refers to is really embodied in a document approved
by the
Congress. In the Committee on National Economy, I believe we denominated
that as an integrated economic development program. I think we know that
is what
we are talking about here. We can either use economic development
program or national development program and they would all be the same
document passed by
Congress. Perhaps, we can leave that to the Committee on Style, since we
agree on the concepts.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Will the distinguished sponsor yield to one question?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: This paragraph states:
The Congress may by law authorize the President to fix within specified
limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose . . .
Does not the Gentleman think the legislature or the Congress and the
President being the two most important departments of government on
national policy
will be sufficient without restricting it or referring it to a national economic
development program because this program has to be determined by the
Congress, in conjunction with the President?
I am making this remark because I recall that every President has an
economic program. Usually, the President has a term of 4 years but his
economic
program is for 5 or 6 years. Most economic programs were good in paper, but
never implemented to improve our economy and the livelihood of our
people.
Why must we still make reference to the so-called economic program when
that is precisely fixed or determined as a national policy by the two highest
departments of government?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the reason our economy is in shambles and
we are in bankruptcy is that the beautiful programs were never
implemented. What
Congress did or what the President did was to write development programs
but these were never taken in perspective or that framework was not used in
actual
implementation. That is the reason we want to put it here, to remind them
that with the proper perspective, this program must be the framework within
which
laws must be implemented.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask Commissioner Monsod to please repeat what is
to be inserted?
MR. MONSOD: On Section 28 (2), page 10, line 5, where it says: or imposts,
change the period (.) to a comma (,) and add the following: WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF GOVERNMENT.
We would like to leave to the Committee on Style the discretion to use
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT or
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF GOVERNMENT. To repeat, we would
like to leave to the Committee on Style the discretion to use NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT or
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM as we had earlier manifested, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this been accepted by the Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
mistaken, it was the government that initiated it and spent for it. In such
cases,
money is appropriated but not for the benefit of any religion in particular.
Regarding the question on the priest, preacher, minister or dignitary, we can
see that there are already exceptions where the government does make
appropriations for them. All I am requesting is that, aside from these
positions mentioned here, when the activity of the priest, minister or rabbi
directly benefits the government, the government should also shoulder the
expenses for that activity.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. AZCUNA: We feel that the amendment is not necessary because what is
prohibited under this subsection is the use of public funds to support a
particular
sect, church, denomination or sectarian institution, or system of religion or to
support any priest, preacher, minister and other religious teachers as
such. So where public funds are used to support an ecumenical type of
activity without discriminating between one sect or the other, we believe it
will not
offend this particular provision. With respect to a priest, preacher or minister
performing a function that is beneficial to the government, he would not
be doing it as such, not as a priest. That is not also prohibited here. So, we
feel the amendment is not necessary, and we would rather leave it to the
Supreme Court to determine case-to-case the open areas of this particular
law to give it a chance to evolve rather than define at the start what the
exceptions are which we may not be able to pursue.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, may I make another explanation?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman will please proceed.
BISHOP BACANI: Our provisions regarding the separation of Church and State
largely follow the American model. There is another model of separation of
Church and State which is found in Europe. For example, in Belgium, which
explicitly states the separation of Church and State, the Protestant ministers,
Catholic priests and the Jewish rabbi are paid by the State. In Germany,
which also upholds the separation of Church and State, a religious tax is
collected from among those who profess any religion, and then the State
pays the ministers for this because they are deemed to be helpful to the
State. Is
such an eventuality foreclosed should the Philippines decide on such a
system?
MR. AZCUNA: We would like to submit this to the body, Madam President,
because we feel there is no need for an amendment to this effect.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: I think the distinguished proponent said a while ago that if the
Committee would express an opinion, which I think they did, in consonance
with what he feels, according to how he interpreted it, he would not press for
his amendment. I would join him on that if we can agree on what we heard
from the Committee. I think that would be for the better.
MR. RODRIGO: May I say something on this? If I remember right, there was a
decision by the Supreme Court regarding commemorative stamps. During
the
Catholic International Eucharistic Congress, our Post Office decided to print
commemorative stamps and this was questioned because they said this was
spending public money for the benefit of the Catholic religion because what
was being commemorated in the stamps was the Catholic word Eucharistic
Congress. The decision of the Supreme Court was that it was all right, that it
was not a violation of this provision because that was mainly for the
benefit of the government. That commemorative stamp was good for the
State and the nation; incidentally, it was in connection with a religious
celebration.
BISHOP BACANI: So, the general principle is, if it benefits the government
directly and is not for the benefit simply of any particular religion, then
funds can be appropriated for that.
MR. RODRIGO: Even if it benefits a particular religion, which was incidental,
like in that commemorative stamp, it is allowed.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
With that, Madam President, I will not press for an amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, we have three more registered speakers, and if
we promise to be brief, probably we could wind up this period of
amendments and
vote on Third or Second Reading on the Article.
I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized for a manifestation.
attend the sessions since he may say at the beginning of the term, I will
attend four years from now, and all the time he will be exempted from
arrest.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee will look into that.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I know it is lunch time so I shall try to be
brief. Since we are ready to close the period of amendments, I have to be
clarified on some matters with regard to Section 31 on initiative and
referendum.
I know for a fact that the Committee discussed very thoroughly the proposals
on initiative and referendum. I would just like to know for the record whether
the discussions made in the Committee will be part of the basic documents
for the discussion of enabling Congress to provide for that system of
initiative
and referendum and maybe the Committee could cite certain specific
suggestions to that effect.
MR. DAVIDE: The proceedings in the Committee would be part of the records
or documents of the Constitutional Commission. And, therefore, the intent on
this
particular can very well be determined in the light of the Committee
discussions especially when the Committee took up the resolutions pertinent
to
initiative and referendum.
MR. GASCON: So, when the Congress tries to enact a law to provide such a
system, they would necessarily have to look into the Committee . . .
MR. DAVIDE: They can look into the records.
MR. GASCON: But they may not also.
MR. DAVIDE: But that is not really compulsory on the Members of the
legislature to look into the Record of this Commission. But it could be their
guide.
MR. GASCON: I was originally planning to propose a mechanism, but in the
event that this will bog down the whole process, I would agree that we
should
allow the Congress to implement such a system. However, I notice that this
section does not provide any time frame whereby the Congress will initiate
such
a system. I would like to make an amendment to the effect that the Congress
is bound to enable such a law immediately upon its affirmation. My first
amendment to Section 31, page 11, line 9 would be to change the word
ten to EIGHT.
I feel that since this is on initiative and referendum, we should try to provide
the people with this reserved power and the opportunity to practice it as
best as they see it. Ten percent is much harder to get than eight percent, and
if we put it down to eight, maybe it would encourage the people to become
more politically active and provide the opportunity for them to really be
involved in this process of initiative. So, the first proposal is from ten to
EIGHT percent.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, at the Committee level, the proponents of
initiative and referendum have agreed to strike at a compromise, and the
compromise
is 10 percent. As a matter of fact, there was a proposal of Commissioner
Romulo and others, pegging it at 20 percent. So, we agreed to the
compromised
formula and put it at 10 percent.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, may we put the matter to a vote?
THE PRESIDENT: May we have again the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Gascon.
MR. GASCON: On line 9, delete the word ten and replace it with the word
EIGHT so that the phrase would read: or local legislative body after the
registration of a petition therefor signed by at least EIGHT percent of the
total number of registered voters.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The body shall now vote on the amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: I was requested to speak for the Committee. The Committee
does not accept the proposed amendment. First of all, during the period of
debate, I
interpellated the Chairman and asked him if this provision in Section 31 was
mandatory or directory, and the answer was, it is directory, giving the power
and prerogative to Congress. Now, setting 90 days would make it mandatory
on Congress, and not only mandatory but with a time frame, with a time
limit. I
do not think we should do that to the Members of Congress Senators
elected by the whole country; Members of the House elected by district; and
perhaps
some of them even elected by party list. Let us remember that the
mechanics of the system of initiative and referendum, while it sounds good
to me it is
good is something novel, something new in the Philippines. And so, we
should not hurry and we should not press the Members of Congress to decide
within
90 days on something that is novel and untried here in the Philippines. We
should give them enough time to study the matter and as the Gentleman
said, even
hold public hearings. But if we limit them to 90 days, we can see the
difficulty they will find themselves in. I think we should have more trust in
the
Congress that we are going to form in accordance with the Constitution and
in the Members who will be elected by the people. Let us give them the
discretion to decide on when they want to enact a legislation regarding
initiative and referendum.
MR. GASCON: Upon the suggestion that maybe 90 days is too short, although
I would like to stick to the principle that it must take the matter into
consideration immediately, would the Gentleman agree to an amendment to
this effect: That the Congress shall IMMEDIATELY provide for a system of
initiative and referendum. My only concern is that the Congress will consider
it and will take steps towards initiating such.
MR. RODRIGO: We must remember that the Members of Congress are elected
by the people and that we should not think of them in terms of individual
senators
or representatives of the people. We should presume that when they act,
they have in mind the mandate of their constituents, the people who elected
them. I
do not think we should press them.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, after conference with my friends here who
agree with the basic principle that we have to allow the Congress to consider
the
matter very seriously, I would withdraw my amendment of adding the word
IMMEDIATELY and replace it with AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE so that the
sentence will
now read: The Congress shall, AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, provide for a system
of initiative and referendum. I would like to ask all the Commissioners to
seriously consider this because the whole point here is that we should assure
the people that this section providing for initiative and referendum will be
provided them as soon as possible, and it will not remain simply beautiful
words in this Constitution, but will become meaningful to them.
VOTING
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, we submit it to the body for a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Gascon, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 18 votes in favor and 11 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, only one brief question, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: With regard to the system of initiative and referendum
referred to in Section 31, is there any possibility, remote though it might be,
that
the Manila incident three weeks ago could use this as a camouflage and as
an excuse, whatever?
MR. DAVIDE: If we speak about possibility, anything may be possible.
MR. TINGSON: Therefore, the Manila incident could be considered later as
initiative and referendum.
MR. DAVIDE: We do not know how they would do it. We will cross the bridge
when we come to it.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you.
would not bar appointment to any other office which is compatible with the
office that one is holding.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I am specifically addressing the issue of
compensation to the Gentleman because, if he will recall, the main reason
why I
provided in the provision I submitted to the Committee on General Provisions
the words indirect compensation was that the Gentleman insisted on
indirect
compensation. And, precisely, if one is a member of the Commission on
Appointments or is a member of the electoral tribunal, he will receive
compensation
which, as the Gentleman said, is indirect and that would fall under the
prohibition.
MR. DAVIDE: I am glad that the matter was presented by the Commissioner. I
am sure that the appropriate committee might restore the clause unless
otherwise provided by law.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, before I leave this issue, I would like to
inform the Committee that an almost exactly the same provision had already
been
approved by the body under Section 7 of the Article on the Civil Service
Commission. Unfortunately, the term indirect compensation and the
exception of
pensions or gratuities are not found in Section 7.I would suggest, with due
deference to my Committee on General Provisions, that this provision under
the
Article on General Provisions be transposed later on to the Article on the Civil
Service Commission where it properly belongs.
I would like to go to another point, Madam President, regarding service in
another office as contained in the provision which I submitted to the
Committee
on General Provisions, and now part of the committee report:
. . . Unless required by law, neither should he hold any other office or
employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
My question is: Will that solve the problem of serving in another office as far
as Senators, Congressmen or members of the Supreme Court serving either
in
the Commission on Appointments, the electoral tribunal or the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal are concerned?
committee but a
contempt of the House.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that situation, therefore, any Cabinet minister can be
compelled, through that kind of subpoena signed by either the President of
the
Senate or the Speaker of the House, to appear before that particular
committee.
MR. DAVIDE: The answer must be qualified. If it is truly in aid of legislation,
yes; but if it is in the guise of an aid in legislation, then it could be
refused.
MR. MAAMBONG: Suppose it is a congressional investigation, Madam
President?
MR. DAVIDE: If it is, then necessarily, he can be compelled.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: We have some very concerned and patriotic persons who are
visiting us this afternoon: so, I move that we suspend the session for a few
minutes to
greet the Concerned Women of the Philippines.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:06 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:14 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Suarez be recognized for an
amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will the distinguished proponent yield to one clarificatory
question?
MS. QUESADA: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Does the amendment consist in adding the word NONPROFIT only?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, that is the only qualifier.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think there is no more necessity of placing the word
NON-PROFIT because if the purpose is for profit, under existing laws in
jurisprudence that portion which is used for profit is really taxable. This is
established in the case of Montana Catholic Missions vs. Louie Clark Country
13 Montana, 559-51 American Jurisprudence 5887 which is an American
case; and in the Philippine case of Herrera vs. Quezon City Board of
Assessment
Appeals L-15270 September 30, 1961.
The jurisprudence says:
. . . That what determines the exempt nature is the use of the said land,
building or improvement, rather than the religious or charitable character of
the
owner.
When a religious or charitable institution engages in business for profit, it
becomes liable to taxation as any other establishment. In other words, if a
portion of the church is not exclusively used for religious purposes but is
leased for business purposes, this provision can be applied. So that portion
which is devoted to a non-religious purpose is already subject to tax. Thus, in
the case, for example, of YMCA vs. Internal Revenue, the Supreme Court held
that the YMCA is not subject to real property tax because it is devoted to a
combination of religious, charitable and educational purposes.
In the case of Herrera vs. Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals, the
Supreme Court held that the admission of pay patients does not detract from
the
charitable character of a hospital, if all of its funds are devoted exclusively to
the maintenance of the institution as a public charity hospital. In
other words, we are rendering charity its primary objective and the funds
derived from payments made by patients able to pay are devoted to the
benevolent
purposes of the institution, so the mere fact that a profit has been made will
not deprive the hospital of its benevolent character. By analogy we say that
even if an educational institution derives some profits, if all of its funds are
In the proprietary schools, the charge is generally P2,000 a year. In the non
proprietary schools, the tuition fee is generally P5,000 a year. Some of them
even charge more than P10,000 a year. These students cannot afford to pay
such an amount so what will the implication be? They will either require the
State to provide them with more schools which the State could not do at
present or they will exert pressure on the non proprietary schools by
requiring
more scholarships or asking them to reduce the tuition fee; otherwise, they
will be forced to stop studying, thereby creating a social problem.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Do I understand that Commissioner Quesada has withdrawn her
proposed amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: She has withdrawn her proposed amendment.
MR. OPLE: I should sit down at this point, but since Commissioner Guingona,
a member of the Committee, raised some very important issues pertaining to
private tertiary education in particular, I think I will ask him a few questions,
if this is possible, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona may yield, if he so desires.
MR. GUINGONA: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
Is there a way of quantifying if we want to vote intelligently on issues
connected with this section? Is there a way of quantifying what the
government
will lose and what the private tertiary schools will gain in terms of
exemptions from real property taxes?
MR. GUINGONA: At the moment, I do not have the figures, Madam President,
but I can say that the exemption would benefit students, as I mentioned
yesterday,
either in the form of reduced fees or non-increase in fees or in the quality of
education that will be offered to them, because all these private schools,
whether proprietary or non proprietary, are heavily dependent on tuition
fees. And as I said a while ago, the proprietary schools are charging relatively
low tuition fees, and in spite of this there are a lot of students who are not
able to study because of economic reasons.
May I just cite one example, Madam President. In the case of the Central
Colleges of the Philippines, for the past three years . . .
MR. OPLE: Is this located in Manila?
MR. GUINGONA. Yes, Madam President. It is located in Aurora Boulevard. The
drop in enrollment was in the average of 1,200 students. But their records
show
that less than 10 percent asked for transfer credentials, which means that
more than 90 percent have stopped studying, not because they want to
transfer to
another school but generally because of economic reasons.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but in the case of the Central Colleges of the Philippines, to
what extent will the subsidy of a tax exemption help relieve its economic
distress so that it can become more viable?
MR. GUINGONA: This tax exemption alone would not be enough, Madam
President. That is why in our Subcommittee on Education, which is part of the
Committee
on Human Resources chairmanned by the Honorable Villacorta, we are
proposing other incentives and other assistance.
MR. OPLE: So this is a minor palliative in the case of schools that are in
extremis financially?
MR. GUINGONA: This is one of the assistance or incentives that we in the
Subcommittee on Education would propose.
MR. OPLE: Given the noble motive the Commissioner has stated that the
poorest students or the poorer students will be the beneficiaries of this
exemption
and, therefore, a subsidys money taken away from the people in order to
vest it in a more specific segment of the society, in this case the educational
entrepreneurs especially at tertiary level, how do we insure that the savings
from this exemption will benefit the students? Is there anything in this
section that creates an obligation for the owners of tertiary schools to pass
on the savings to the students?
MR. GUINGONA: Not in this section, Madam President, but it is provided for in
the sections that the Subcommittee on Education will propose.
MR. OPLE: Yes. I would like to leave the larger questions concerning this
subject to the forthcoming debate on the educational system as a whole.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Uka has one of his irresistible comments, so he
wishes to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we still talking about this? May the Chair be informed if
there is a pending proposed amendment?
MR. ROMULO: Just a comment, Madam President.
MR. UKA: Just for one minute, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Uka is recognized.
MR. UKA: I would like to ask the honorable members of the Committee if they
would accept this amendment to be added to Section 28 (3), line 10:
PROPRIETARY
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SHALL LIKEWISE BE ENTITLED TO THE
EXEMPTION PROVIDED THEY LIMIT DIVIDENDS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
My reason for this, Madam President, is that tax exemptions are one form of
reimbursement to the parents of millions of poor students all over the
country.
In European countries like Holland and Germany, tax exemptions are
extended to schools. Although I have not been there, I have read in many
articles on
education that many of their proprietary schools are exempted from
taxation.
We also note, as Commissioner Guingona said, that more than 75 percent of
our poor college students are enrolled in the so-called proprietary
educational
institutions. If said schools will close because of high taxation, the question
is: Can the government take over these schools or at least help the
students who are forced to stop because of the closure of these proprietary
schools? If it does, that is like a mouse swallowing a big cat. Even foundation
schools are now losing and they are about to close due to low enrollment. We
really need these proprietary educational institutions; otherwise, we will
increase the number of illiterate voters, a situation which we would like to
avoid. So I would like to recommend to the Committee the addition of the
following provision: PROPRIETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SHALL
LIKEWISE BE ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED THEY LIMIT
DIVIDENDS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY
LAW.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the honorable Chairman of the Committee say?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, may we request very kindly Commissioner
Uka to defer consideration of that proposed amendment and to take that up
when the
Article on Human Resources shall be taken up by the body. We feel that that
would be the proper situs of the proposal.
MR. UKA: I agree, Madam President.
Thank you very much.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SURVEY ON SYNCHRONIZATION OF ELECTIONS
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, we have two subject matters to be taken up.
The first is with regard to the synchronization of elections, copies of the
results of the survey of which, I think, has been provided everybody. And the
second question is the party list sectoral representation issue.
I move that we proceed to the consideration of the survey on the
synchronization of the elections for the Offices of the President and VicePresident, the
Members of the Congress and the local officials.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Acting Floor
Leader? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will the Acting Floor Leader yield to a question
concerning this agenda?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, certainly.
MR. OPLE: We are taking up the consideration of the survey on the
synchronization of the elections, and within that context the specific terms of
office of
the President and the Vice-President, the Members of the Congress and the
local officials. Is that correct?
MR. ROMULO: That is my proposal inasmuch as the survey covers all of those
offices.
MR. OPLE: This will not foreclose a full debate on the question of the terms of
the President and the Vice-President in this Constitution later on?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, firstly, I do not think this involves the
incumbents.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
MR. ROMULO: Does that satisfy Commissioner Ople?
MR. OPLE: That is all the information I wanted.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The term of the incumbents is taken up in the Transitory
Provisions. Is that correct?
MR. ROMULO: That is correct, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So the body will now discuss the term of office of the
President, Vice-President, the Members of the Congress and the local
officials.
MR. ROMULO: Yes. So in other words, strictly speaking, we will discuss the
synchronization of elections.
May we ask the Secretary-General to read the result of the opinion survey on
the term of office.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Madam President, we have submitted the survey
results to the Chairman of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is asking the Secretary-General to
read the result of the survey.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: For Scheme No. I, a total of 19 Members opted.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Secretary-General please state the figures 6-6, 4-4
or whatever is there.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee would like to suggest, since only Scheme Nos. I
and II had obtained a result in excess of ten, while the others are five or less,
that the discussion be limited to Scheme Nos. I and II to eliminate the others
in the meantime.
MR. ROMULO: And would the Chairman like a general discussion on the first
and second schemes?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we leave it to the body.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:54 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:02 p.m, the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I move that we limit the discussion to three
schemes: Scheme No. I, Scheme No. II, and Scheme No. VII.
MR. DAVIDE: I second the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Acting Floor
Leader that we limit our discussion this afternoon to Scheme Nos. I, II and
VII?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be
recognized to sponsor Scheme No. I.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Before we proceed, may I announce, Madam President, that we
will decide now on the terms of office of six years, four years and five years.
After all the sponsorships are finished, interpellations will take place. Then
once we have voted on the term, we will then decide the other questions of
whether or not there will be reelection for a particular official. Is that
satisfactory?
and the
second eight, four years. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro can bring out those issues during
the period of interpellations.
MR. DE CASTRO: That is why I asked whether or not the frequency of
elections shall be included in the period of interpellations.
THE PRESIDENT: It might be. We cannot exclude any particular subject in the
period of interpellations.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: May we now proceed?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, a further suggestion. The Members would
like the proponent of a scheme to discuss not only the term of office but also
the
frequency of elections, whether with or without reelection.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you, Madam President.
May I now ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER BENGZON ON SCHEME NO. I
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, these issues have already been discussed
and battered for the last few days. It probably would not even take me five
minutes
to sponsor Scheme No. 1.
Everybody is familiar with Scheme No. I 6 years for the President and VicePresident; 6 years for the Senators; 4 years for the Congressmen; and 4
years
for the local officials.
Since we have decided to discuss together with these numbers the issue of
whether or not reelections will take place, I shall state that for this
proposition there is no reelection for the President and Vice-President but
they will have a term of six years; no reelection for the Senators but they
will also have a term of six years; there will be reelection for the
Congressmen; and one reelection for the local officials.
The famous phrase of President Quezon before was:
Four years is too short for a good President; and, therefore, he should have a
reelection.
I would say, Madam President, six years would be good enough for a good
President to perform and implement his program of government. How about
one who is
a bad President? People will say six years is too long. To that I say that in the
committee reports, we have emasculated the powers of the Executive. We
have reduced the power of the President. We have strengthened the powers
of the Supreme Court. We have institutionalized all over the committee
reports
peoples power. And, therefore, to me a bad President will not be able to
carry out his evil deeds with all of these checks and balances, with the
emasculated powers that he would have, with the strengthened Supreme
Court and judiciary, with the strengthened legislature and, principally and
most of
all, with peoples power which is now recognized in the Constitution.
Six years for the Senators, I guess, would be sufficient; one of the arguments
being that the Senate, since the Senators will be elected at large, would be
a training ground for national leaders for the presidency. If within six years a
Senator would not be able to prove himself capable of becoming the
President of the Philippines, then he will never be able to prove that.
The Congressmen have a four-year term with reelection, together with the
local officials, because they are the ones who are in close touch with the
people.
And as the times change constantly, they would be the ones who would
implement the parochial programs of their constituencies, aided by their
colleagues in
the Senate who would have the overview of the national problems.
Those are the arguments in favor of Scheme No. I, Madam President.
Thank you.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, may I just ask one question of the sponsor?
MR ROMULO: The Commissioner may not.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I state that with respect to the nonreelection of the Vice-president and the Senators, I am not very sanguine for
that
either. Whatever the body decides, we certainly will go along with it.
MR. RODRIGO: I am glad that this will not be a bloody encounter, Madam
President. So as regards the Senators, we will allow them indefinite
reelection like
it was before. Under our Scheme No. II, Representatives and local officials
will have a term of three years, for the purpose of having election every
three
years instead of every two years.
I would like to state that in the United States Federal Congress, the term of
the members of the Lower House is only two years. We have been used to a
term
of four years here but I think three years is long enough. But they will be
allowed to run for reelection any number of times. In this way, we remedy
the
too frequent elections every two years. We will have elections every three
years under this scheme and we will have a continuing Senate. Every
election, 12
of the 24 Senators will be elected, so that 12 Senators will remain in the
Senate. We will have a staggered membership in the Senate. In other words,
we
will have a continuing Senate.
Of course, there are misgivings about this three-year term. They say that the
local officials, the officers-in-charge in provinces and even the ousted
governors and municipal mayors might not like the fact that their term will
be reduced from four years, as it was before, to three years. But, as I said,
were it not for the fact that under the first scheme, the election would be too
frequent every two years, I would like to maintain the four-year term for
local officials. However, I think the lesser of two evils is to give them three
years; meaning, the term of Representatives and the local officials will be
three years, so that elections will be held every three years instead of every
two years. Of course, this can be criticized. It has defects, but nothing in
this world is perfect. Del mal el menor, between two evils, choose the lesser.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized to sponsor Scheme No. VII.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER DAVIDE ON SCHEME NO. VII
win
against the tyranny of political dynasties.
Furthermore, Madam President, if we will adopt this particular scheme of
four-four-four, we will have a self-rejuvenating office. Like in the presidency, a
President can hold on to office for a total of eight years because we will allow
one reelection, the idea being that six years may be too long indeed for a
bad President, but not too long for a good President. So we will allow one
reelection for the President, the Vice-President, Senators and
Representatives
so at least every eight years, granting that they would be reelected, we will
have a new face in Malacaang, a new face at the Executive House, new
faces
in the Senate and new faces in the Lower House.
But again I would say that to allow a six-year term for the Senate would be to
make it an elitist group for a long time. And the danger is that if the
Senate and the Lower House would have different terms, say, six years for
the Upper House and four years for the Lower House, we might come to a
situation
where, despite the mandate of the people for a change in leadership
because the people voted for one political party, we might preserve in the
Senate the
mandate supposedly earlier acquired in favor of one political party. So we
might have a divided Congress because of the so-called continuing Upper
House,
divided in the sense that the Upper House may be maintained only by one
political party but the new Members of the Lower House, attaining a fresh
mandate
of the people, may belong to another party. So we will always have a Senate
which cannot cooperate with the Lower House and a Lower House which
cannot
cooperate with the Upper House and that is what is happening now in the
United States Congress where they have an Upper House controlled by one
party and a
Lower House controlled by the other party.
So we will have legislation derailed or even the national interest and public
welfare imperiled because the mandate for the Lower House is different from
the mandate for the Upper House.
And finally, Madam President, this is the only way where we could
immediately have synchronization of elections.
The only opposition to this scheme is that the citizens in one given election
may be voting for so many candidates, but that is not a problem. We know
for
a fact that political leaders or political parties who have their own people
voting in a given election would even practice the voters by preparing a
sample ballot, and this sample ballot will be brought inside the polling place
for the people to copy it. In short, it is not an obstacle; it is not a
hindrance. The number of candidates to be voted in a synchronized election
is not a hindrance. As a matter of fact, it is a demonstration of democracy of
the highest order.
So I plead that we be supported in this scheme. To the old Members of the
Commission, we plead that they give the young a chance. To the young, give
ourselves a chance.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: May I seek guidance from the Acting Floor Leader on whether a
Member of the Commission can interpellate at will any one of the three
sponsors?
MR. ROMULO: As I stated while the Commissioner was out, we will now
proceed to the period of interpellations since the sponsorship is already
finished. And
any Member may interpellate the three sponsors. Commissioner Aquino is
listed to be the first to interpellate.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much for the clarification.
MR. ROMULO: May I ask that Commissioner Aquino be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized. The Chair asks the
Commissioner to please designate the sponsor to be interpellated.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President. I will speak against Scheme Nos. I and II, and
consequently endorse Scheme No. VII of Commissioner Davide, which calls
for a
4-4-4 term.
Scheme No. II provides holding of elections every four years for the House of
Representatives, and Scheme No. I, every two years for the Senate.
The holding of an election for the Representatives once every four years and
for one-third of the Members of the Senate every two years would
necessarily
change the composition of the Senate twice during its term, while the House
of Representatives would have a chance to change its composition only once
after four years. This kind of an arrangement can produce anomalous
political results. It can present serious obstacles to the efficient and healthy
operation of the multiparty system within the bicameral legislature. It has, in
fact, a tendency of multiplying unnecessarily the possibilities for one
party to gain control of one House, and for another party to consolidate its
control of another House.
In effect, therefore, Scheme Nos. I and II would breed a relationship of
factionalism, disharmony and inefficiency.
Ladies and gentlemen of this Commission, we are now a part of the creation
of something new, and there is a very strong collective drift in favor of
adopting a multiparty system and sectoral representation. These are
innovations which will be effectively diluted in Scheme Nos. I and II, as
presented;
whereas, these innovations would find healthy fruition in Scheme No. VII as
discussed by Commissioner Davide. Let us give it a chance.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Tingson be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I favor Scheme No. VII except that,
personally, I will not compromise on the term of the presidency. I would like
to have the
President serve only one term without reelection, because by so deciding, it
seems to me that much of our irrational political attitudes, practices and
tendencies would be solved.
So I would agree with the Senators, Representatives and local officials
serving also a four-year term. But I was just wondering whether somebody
could
answer me now. I know that Commissioner Monsod is our expert on this, but
whoever could enlighten me, would it be possible to have Scheme No. VII
and then
have a six-year term for the President without reelection and with the same
frequency of election of four years?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, mathematically, it is not possible. If we
have a President with a six-year term and the rest have a four-year term,
then there
must be a bi-election at some point in time.
MR. TINGSON: Then the proponent of this was mistaken a while ago. There is
also an evil thing on this Scheme No. VII. (Laughter) So I would vote for the
less evil and that is Scheme No. 1. And I can justify now, however, the
election every two years as a consonant thing to what we are doing, giving
our
people the right to initiate referendum as often as they want to to take away
public officials who do not serve our people well.
So if that is the case, I am going to vote for Scheme No. I. (Laughter)
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
May I request the sponsor of Scheme No. I to answer a question or two.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Can we settle what some Members of the Commission consider a
prejudicial matter with respect to Scheme No. I? I heard the sponsor say that
he did
not feel particularly sanguine about the ban on the reelection of the VicePresident and the Senators.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Can he now make an explicit statement to the effect that under
Scheme No. I, there is no bar to the reelection of the Vice-President and of
the
Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives?
MR. BENGZON: Yes. With respect to the Vice- President to run again as VicePresident, I have no problem with that; we should not have any problem with
that; he should not be banned from running again for reelection as VicePresident.
MR. OPLE: He is not barred as well from seeking the presidency?
MR. BENGZON: Of course, he is not barred as well from seeking the
presidency. The theory being that if he is not barred to seek the presidency,
then he
should not be barred to seek reelection for the vice-presidency.
MR. OPLE: Yes; otherwise, I would like to inquire into the reason for
preventing by this Constitution the Vice-President and the Members of the
legislature
from seeking reelection under Scheme No. I.
MR. BENGZON: As I said, one at a time. The Vice-President, considering that
he can seek the presidency should not be barred to seek reelection as
Vice-President There should be no reason why he cannot seek reelection as
Vice-President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: With respect to the Senators, I said I am not sanguine about
barring them for reelection because what I have in mind is to allow one
reelection for the Members of the Senate.
MR. OPLE: Only one reelection?
MR. BENGZON: Yes, because that would mean one would serve for a total of
12 consecutive years. If he gets reelected, then he will have served the
country
as a Senator for 12 years. And since, as I said, one of the reasons for
allowing a Senate is that it would serve as a training area for national
leaders, I
guess a Senator who shall not have proven himself capable of being a
national leader, being a President, within a period of 12 years is just
hopeless.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in returning to the model of the 1935
Constitution resurrecting the two-chamber legislature, with respect to the
Senate, I think
we are, in effect, emulating the original model of the United States Senate,
otherwise known as the most powerful club in the world. And is it not a fact,
Madam President, that in the case of the United States Senate, a great part
of its strength is owed to the fact that a high proportion of its members have
served most of their adult professional lives in that Chamber and, therefore,
among themselves constitute a major repository of the wisdom and
experience
and knowledge of their times? Is it not a fact that some of these Senators
have been reelected time and again I cannot mention specific examples
now
so that there are a good number of them who have served in the Senate for
as long as thirty years, sometimes forty years and, therefore, during that
long
period of time, they accumulated such a wealth of knowledge and
presumably wisdom that they can apply to their tasks as representatives of
their states in
the American Senate.
MR. BENGZON: That may be so. But if we translate that in Philippine
situation, it may also be so that we have a lot of our distinguished Senators
who
accumulate this wealth of experiences and knowledge. But at the same time
we have also a wealth of young bright people willing, ready, able and raring
to
serve our country. We should also give them a chance. We can have those
Senators, distinguished by experience and age, to offer their experience and
services to the younger ones as consultants in their respective districts and
constituencies. They are not barred from continuing to serve their country,
not necessarily as Senators but, shall we say, as members of the council of
elders for the younger ones who would be elected.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, as a rule and I am sure this will be
corroborated by experts in comparative parliamentary systems, unless I
stand to be
corrected no Constitution prevents the reelection of members of
legislatures. And rare are constitutions, a good example is Mexicos, which
provide for
only a single term for the President; and I know of no jurisdiction where the
Vice-President is subject to a ban on reelection. The point is that the right
to stand for an office is inherent in the right to be voted upon with the
exceptions that I have mentioned. And I think we are in danger of curtailing
the
right of suffrage when we put into the Constitution these numerous
prohibitions on the candidates who are otherwise fully qualified Filipino
citizens. The
principal objection to Scheme No. I that I gather, Madam President, is that it
provides for too frequent elections. Is it correct that under Scheme No. I,
we shall be holding elections once every two years?
MR. BENGZON: That is true.
MR. OPLE: This will then bring us back to that normal political rhythm of the
decade before martial law was proclaimed when we held elections every two
years. Is that correct?
MR. BENGZON: Yes, we will be brought back to the old system of having
elections every two years, except that I would not want to admit that
prospectively,
when we have elections every two years, we will go back to the bad habits of
the past because the maturity of the people then and the maturity of the
people now has a world of difference.
MR. OPLE: Elections every two years do not necessarily mean that the same
combinations of offices will be voted for. Is that right? What I mean is that in
one biennial election, probably, we will have a combination of the eight
Senators and the local officials. And then, in a subsequent election after two
years, perhaps we will have the Members of the House of Representatives
and the local officials. No, it is not the local elections but the presidential
elections combined with, let us say, the eight Senators. They will always be
there, is that right?
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. OPLE: But, in addition, the people will vote for their Congressmen
through the different legislative districts?
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. OPLE: And so. that one election need not duplicate the next or
subsequent elections.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Does the sponsor agree with the proposition uttered here earlier
that elections tend to be costly and, therefore, harmful to the economy, and
that they are necessarily divisive?
MR. BENGZON: According to Commissioner Monsod I guess this was based
on the data that he has on hand as NAMFREL Chairman the cost of one
election is
P190,000,000, and on the basis of his arithmetical mind, he feels that that is
not too much an expense to incur for the elections, if one considers the
fact that the Filipino as a political animal requires that amount to exercise his
political rights every so often.
MR. OPLE: I thought elections are unifying rather than divisive, unless they
are marked by fraud and terrorism. Elections are supposed to be the
opportunities to present issues and to achieve a consensus on what a nation
or a community should do. Of course, where elections are generally clean
and
honest, they ought to leave no bitter aftermath; they ought not to excite
partisan passions. The partisan passions ought to die down as quickly as
they
used to abate after a very fierce electoral contest. Everyone knows that the
rules have been scrupulously observed and, of course, politics is a zero-sum
game. For every winner, there is a loser.
Does the sponsor think that those who are concerned about the divisiveness
of elections ought instead to focus on constitutional measures to guarantee
clean and free elections, instead of putting all the blame on the exercise of
suffrage itself as being tremendously divisive to a nation or to a community?
MR. BENGZON: The fact of divisiveness really depends on the particular area
in this country. There are certain areas and province in this country where
election is unifying instead of dividing. There are certain areas also where no
matter what one does and how less frequent the elections are, elections are
divisive in nature. I guess it depends on the temperament of the people in
those areas.
MR. OPLE: Does the sponsor agree that a national consensus can never be
achieved if there are no elections, in which the people have expressed
themselves
on issues in a manner that elected government would then be able to derive
its guidance from the will of the people?
MR. BENGZON: Yes. That is why Scheme No. I is the best.
MR. OPLE: Does the sponsor also agree that by holding elections once every
two years, the opportunities for peoples organizations to use the power of
initiative and referendum will be multiplied? Normally, they would be stuck to
an election for purposes of economy, although this is not necessarily true
at all times. But the legislature stands to think of initiative in connection with
an election so that, just like in the United States, nearly all acts of
initiative and referendum have to piggyback on the elections.
MR. BENGZON: The Gentleman has never been so right.
MR. OPLE: When we speak, therefore, of the concern of those espousing a
multiparty system and peoples power and the use of the ultimate reserve of
peoples power which is initiative and referendum, rising to the height of a
constitutional amending power in the Transitory Provisions, meaning, one can
use initiative even to challenge an existing provision of the Constitution if
one is dissatisfied with the indifference, neglect and intractability of a
sitting National Assembly or Congress, the more frequent the elections, the
more abundant the opportunities for the exercise of the power of initiative
and
referendum.
MR. BENGZON: Yes. And, as a matter of fact, I would like to thank the
Gentleman for making those statements because, in effect, they would reply
to the
arguments of our dear colleague, Commissioner Aquino, in saying that
Scheme No. VII is the scheme that would provide the best opportunity for the
many
sections of our society to get into political power. I think that Scheme No. I
also provides that, because for every election that we have, these
multisectoral organizations would have every opportunity to express
themselves and to serve the government.
MR. OPLE: My last point, Madam President, has to do with the concern of the
economists, as a rule this comes from economic circles on the
possibility
of aggravating inflation through wanton expenditures during elections; and if
they occur once every two years, then there must be some grounds for such
a
concern. Is there a way associated with Scheme No. I to control campaign
expenditures of political parties?
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President. In 1970, when Congress called for a
Constitutional Convention, they passed a law limiting the expenses of the
candidates
by providing for certain measurements of posters, prohibiting streamers,
billboards and things like that. I was one of those who ran for the 1971
Constitutional Convention and was restricted by that rule, and I was
successful. Of course, I told my constituents that of all the candidates, I was
the
only one who was allowed to have billboards and streamers because all the
Pepsi billboards are for my votes. But that is beside the point. The fact is that
all the candidates to the Constitutional Convention in 1971 stuck to that rule
and expenses were at a minimum.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, is the sponsor now in a position to show this
Commission any specific part of the Constitution where this concern is
addressed?
MR. BENGZON: I cannot mention this offhand but certainly the Committee
can take this into account if we can introduce that kind of concept so that
Congress
would be guided accordingly and the necessary law can be passed to ensure
that expenses can be limited to a minimum level.
MR. OPLE: Of course, campaign expenditures are sometimes seen as having
the redistribution effect especially if one runs into a deflationary situation as
distinguished from an inflationary situation. Has the sponsor formed an
opinion concerning this theory that elections have a redistribution effect and
that, therefore, they can be democratizing because some resources in the
country which are concentrated in a few hands will now have to shift down to
various layers of the people?
I just have a few questions to the sponsors of Scheme Nos. I and II. The term
of office for Senators is six years. Do the sponsors contemplate two years
for the first eight, then four years for the next eight and six years for the last
eight? Is that the staggering situation that will happen to the 24
Senators?
MR. RODRIGO: The term is really six years for every Senator. But in the first
election, in order that we can stagger, then it will be two years for the
eight Senators; four years for the other eight; and six years for the last eight.
My own thinking is, we should decide it this way: those on the top eight will
have six years; the second eight will have four years; and the last eight
will have two years.
MR. DE CASTRO: This holds true in the first election?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: Is this also true with Scheme No. I? May I ask the sponsor
please?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, Commissioner Monsod has it all worked out
in a sketch. May I request that Commissioner Monsod be recognized to
answer the
questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am only asking a simple question. Is this staggering of the
Senators in Scheme No. I the same as that in Scheme No. II?
MR. RODRIGO: No. I did not mention Scheme No. II. I thought the Gentleman
is asking about Scheme No. I.
In Scheme No. II, it will be staggered. Since the election will be every three
years, then 12 Senators will be elected every three years.
MR. DE CASTRO: I see. Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: With respect to the staggering of Scheme No. I, I would like to
request Commissioner Monsod to answer the question.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, it would be staggered in that eight Senators
will be voted every two years except that we need one adjustment, rather
one-and-a-half adjustment.
For the first election in 1987, eight Senators will be voted for five years and
16 will be voted for three years. In 1990, those 16 will now be divided
this way: eight will be voted for four years and eight for six years. After that,
there is no more need for any adjustment. We will have elections for
Senators every two years.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, on the first election, that is, in 1987, eight Senators will
be voted.
MR. MONSOD: No, we will vote for 24 Senators except that the top eight
Senators will have a term of five years and the lower 16 will have a term of
three
years.
MR. DE CASTRO: Scheme No. VII looks very nice; we will have elections every
four years. But as the sponsor mentioned, everytime there is an election,
there
will be 49 names I do not know whether my arithmetic is right from
President, Vice-President, up to the 12 councilors in the municipality. There
are 49
names to be written on the ballot. Is that right, Madam President?
MR. DAVIDE: Under that scheme, it may be a little over 40. We have the
President and the Vice-President, the Senators . . .
MR. DE CASTRO: Twenty-four Senators?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, plus one member of the Lower House in ones district, one
governor, one vice-governor, and members of the provincial board. There are
probably six local officials.
MR. DE CASTRO: Six.
MR. DAVIDE. Yes. We have the mayor, the vice-mayor and probably 12
councilors.
MR. DE CASTRO: If we add that, it will be 49.
MR. DAVIDE: No, not 12 councilors, only eight councilors.
MR. DE CASTRO: The score is 45. The first election in 1987 will have the
same number, and we really wonder during our deliberation what the ballot
will be
about. I do not know, a meter long to accommodate all these names? And
every four years, there will be about a meter-long ballot, and still considering
the
illiterates, who are authorized to vote, I really wonder.
In the last election for the President and the Vice-President, I saw a voter
enter the booth at eight oclock. She would write only two names. She could
hardly finish it at ten oclock. That is no exaggeration. Those are two names
only. Did the sponsor realize the difficulty? Even myself, if I will write 45
names and think about who is better among the candidates, it will take me
no less than 30 minutes, perhaps, 40 minutes. Has the sponsor realized the
folly
of Scheme No. VII?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we have realized that, but we do not
contemplate the situation the way the Commissioner did. Firstly, any voter
who goes to a
polling booth knows already for whom he will be voting. And it is really the
strategy of political parties to prepare sample ballots. They know who their
people are. So, the voter will only copy on the ballot the names in the sample
ballot. Insofar as the illiterates are concerned, under our proposal, the
illiterates can vote faster than the literates. Probably, they will just check a
box on the ballots.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you for the information. I am really working on
Scheme No. I, and I like it. In fact, I was not included in the survey. The
survey
here indicated 20 respondents; if my name were to be added, it will be 21.
But I really wonder how there can be an election every two years. Let us
assume
this: In the Transitory Provisions, the incumbent President will be given a
term of six years, so that will be until 1992. So, the next election, if it is
after six years, will be in 1998. Am I correct?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Her term will not be reduced to 1991.
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President, because there will be no election in
1991.
MR. DE CASTRO: There will be an election in 1991.
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President. The adjustment is a three-year term.
And, therefore, the 16 Senators and Members of the House will be up for
election in
1990, not 1991.
again jibe with the election of Senators, Congressmen and local officials
without tampering with the term of the Congressmen to three years and
giving five
years to the local officials.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, maybe this is not the time for it. I notice that there is also
an adjustment there because at some point, he reduces the term of the
President. Secondly, he does not want the House and the local officials to be
elected in the same year; he wants them to be elected separately every two
years. Otherwise, he will not have the benefit of holding elections every two
years. But if the Gentleman wants them, not on the same year.
MR. DE CASTRO: My only comment there is, it is very difficult to reduce to
three years the term of the Congressmen and then increase by one year the
term
of the local officials. But nevertheless, I would request Scheme No. II. Under
this scheme, to my poor arithmetical mind, again, the only time that we will
have elections would be every three years, for all the Representatives and
the local officials, because we will eventually have elections in 1998 for
President and in 1995 for Senators. And then, there will be an election in
1993 for the Representatives and local officials, meaning, there will be an
election every two years, and then, there will be a sole election in 1998. It is
not every three years, unless we begin to adjust again the number of years
for Senators, etc.
MR. RODRIGO: I have not made my own computation.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Regalado be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you. Madam President.
Although I belong to a profession which is reputed for its loquacity especially
when one is speaking in defense of the indefensible, I will be brief and to
the point. I assume that all the Commissioners here have done their
homework. And we are not wanting in political background, history and
experience, with
the plethora of arguments, pro and con, as to have to reach over to the
jurisprudence and the laws of other countries. So, I will just address the first
question to the sponsor of Scheme No II, Commissioner Rodrigo, because
neither the sponsors of Scheme Nos. I and II which bar the President from
reelection
after the first six years, has made any qualificative mention of the possibility
of the President after the six-year term as not being eligible after the
lapse of six years immediately following the term.
Under the present proposed Article on the Executive, a natural-born citizen,
at the age of 40, is entitled to run for President. Assuming he gets elected,
by the time the term ends he will be 46; then he goes into a six-year period
of political hibernation and things may change such that later his sterling
qualities displayed during his term may warrant his being reharnessed and
reimpressed into the public service. Would Commissioner Rodrigo consider
the
possibility that although we maintain the six-year term for the President, he
shall only be barred from immediate reelection and that after the intervening
six years, he could thereafter be eligible for another term?
MR. RODRIGO: I would not be averse to such a suggestion, meaning to say,
after the six-year term, he cannot run for reelection on that year, but two
years
later, there will be another election but that will be a local election. He will
have to wait for six years. I cannot mathematically make a computation on
how he can run for reelection after a shorter period than six years.
MR. REGALADO: Because, after all, he would only be about 52 years old
when he runs for reelection, assuming he gets elected at the age of 40.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, then he finishes his term at 46. The next presidential
election would be six years later.
MR. REGALADO: Six years later, he will only be 52.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, he can run for reelection.
MR. REGALADO: My second question is addressed to the sponsor of Scheme
No. VII, I think, Commissioner Davide. After the four-year term the aspirant is
eligible for another four years and then, no further reelection thereafter is
allowed because he shall have already served a maximum of eight
consecutive
years. Commissioner Davide has mentioned that the only drawback in this is
the fact that the voter will have to be voting for so many people and for
which
he already suggested a possible solution. The proponents of those who are
for a six-year term without immediate reelection, however, point to the fact
that
under the four-year term, four years and with eligibility for another four
years, there is the tendency for the President, during the first four years of
his term, to play the role of a politician. There would be too much politicking,
too much regrouping of his resources for the purpose of insuring his
reelection after the first term. Will Commissioner Davide give us some
arguments which can disabuse our mind on the possibility that during the
first four
years, the President is purely a politician and it is only during the second
term that he tries his best to be a statesman?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, if we allow a politician to seek one reelection,
it is not so that he will spend the first four years politicking. If at all
it is politicking, it is politicking for good because he will stand a reelection. If
he will really be a bad politician, then certainly, the people will
not vote for him. So, one seeking immediate reelection will try his best to be
a very good executive, otherwise he will lose his bid for a reelection. And
at this instance, I would like to partly answer the criticism on a long list. It
should be remembered that the first election in 1987 will contain already
that long list of candidates and, therefore, with that as a basis, the
succeeding election would be a matter of habit.
MR. REGALADO: Then if the sponsor says that the President, during his first
term of four years and looking forward to a reelection, would try to
implement
some substantial programs and prove himself by some very good
achievements for the country because he wants to be reelected, would that
not also be an
argument in favor of a President, with a term of six years to also try his very
best and thereafter seek another reelection?
MR. DAVIDE: That would not be true because six years would be too long. In
other words, if we allow him one reelection, this President may be assured of
a
dynasty of 12 years. And that, indeed, would be too long. The danger is, he
might proclaim martial law.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be recognized, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I would like to make a few
observations and to ask some questions of the proponents of the different
schemes. It is
obvious that none of the schemes is perfect. On Scheme No. I, for example,
the criticism is that it does not solve the frequency of elections because we
shall also hold elections every two years; whereas, the desire of many people
is to have less frequent elections, which could be solved by Scheme No. II
whereby we can only hold elections every three years.
We need an adjustment as well because we do not want the House and the
local officials to be voted on the same year. We want them to be on a bielection
basis because they are the officials who have local constituencies, not
national constituencies. So, probably we do not want them elected on the
same year.
So, no matter what we do, we have to have an adjustment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: In other words, the intent in determining these different
schemes is, if, for example, we decide on a six-year term for the President
and
Vice-President and, as the sponsor says, it will start in 1987, the term of the
incumbent President and Vice-President, aside from being fixed by a
constitutional mandate, would be increased by one year. Is that the idea?
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President, at least as I understand it, the term of
the incumbent President is six years, beginning from 1986. I believe that is
the
proposal of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions. So, it
is better probably not to adjust the term of the incumbent whose term has
already
been vested, but adjust the terms of those who will be elected so that they
know for what term they are being voted, what term they are facing. So, we
adjust the terms of those who will be in the elections in 1987; instead of
giving them the full 4 years, we give some 3 years and the local officials, 5
years. Then, we start synchronizing in 1992 which is the sixth year of the
incumbent President and Vice-President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Let us concretize the situation. Let us assume that we fix
the term of the incumbent President and Vice-President up to June 30, 1992.
How will we elect the Senators Representatives and local officials assuming
that we adopt Scheme No. I?
MR. MONSOD: In Scheme No. I, as I told Commissioner de Castro earlier, the
first 8 Senators will be elected for five years, their term of office ending in
1992, simultaneous with the incumbent President; 16 Senators, the bottom
16, will have a three-year term ending in 1990; the Members of the House
will have
a three-year term ending in 1990; and the local officials will have a five-year
term ending in 1992. In 1990, therefore, we will have 16 Senators and the
Members of the House up for election The Members of the House, by that
time, will already have their regular four-year term. The top eight Senators
will
serve the regular six-year term and the bottom eight will serve a four-year
term. After that, all elections are synchronized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I see. So, there will be a transitory provision which will
have a different term of office prior to 1992?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I see. Suppose, although the possibility is remote, that
this Commission approves a proposal that the question of whether the
incumbency
of the President or Vice-President be submitted to the people as a separate
question during the ratification of this Constitution and that there is a
mandate from the people that the incumbent President and Vice-President
submit themselves to an election, how will this scheme work?
MR. MONSOD: Then, we just move the base year from 1992 to 1993 and the
terms will be four instead of three years, and six instead of five years for the
first adjustment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
First of all, I would like to thank those who made this opinion survey and I am
very happy for the fact that Scheme No. VII, which I tried to passionately
present in the last caucus, is now included in the survey. There were several
contributions made by other Commissioners to this scheme, but I really do
not
know if they voted on this because the voting was secret and I do not know
where they went. Anyway, Commissioner Davide made a very lucid
presentation of
Scheme No. VII. Unfortunately, he was no longer around. The fact is that
Commissioner Davide failed to indicate, and this is what I would like to get
from
him: Considering that there should be adjustments on the incoming term, I
made some computations and it would appear that in the assumption that
we will
follow the date of the election as indicated in the provisions of the
legislature, which means that the election would be conducted on the second
Monday of
May 1987 and the term of office would start on June 30, 1987, actually, me
first term of the incumbent President and Vice-President, starting on
February
25, 1986, would be six years, four months and five days up to June 30, 1992.
Would that be correct?
MR. DAVIDE: Five years, four months and five days.
MR. MAAMBONG: That does not seem to be my computation because my
computation, starting from February 25, 1986 up to June 30, 1992, shows
that it would be
six years, four months and five days.
MR. DAVIDE: If the second parliamentary and local elections will be on the
second Monday of May 1992.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I am starting on the point of reference of
the incumbent President and Vice-President with the assumption that we are
not
going to let her submit herself to an election. So, if we compute from
February 25, 1986, her term would end on June 30, 1992 and, actually, her
exact term
from February 25, 1986 would be six years, four months and five days. I just
want a confirmation of that.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Another adjustment would be, although Scheme No. VII
refers to four years for all officials, if the election would be held on the
second
Monday of May 1987 and the term starts on June 30, 1987, in the first
election, the Senators, Representatives and local government officials would
actually
have a term of five years as an adjustment, in effect, because we will be
counting from June 30, 1987 up to June 30, 1992.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: And then, finally, in Scheme No. VII, from the starting point
of June 30, 1992 onwards, all their terms would be for four years, meaning,
the
President, Vice-President, Senators, Representatives and local government
officials.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is all, Mr. Chairman and Madam President.
Thank you very much.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 5:28 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:52 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Rigos wants to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I just want to express some of my feelings on
the issues that are before us.
I think part of our difficulty is that we try to mix, for instance, the issue of the
term of the President with the issue of the frequency of elections.
Perhaps, this is unavoidable, but it looks like we have to weigh the
advantages or disadvantages of one over the other. Perhaps, in the long run,
what we
should do is to decide whether or not the term of the President will be four
years or six years, and whether or not we should hold elections every two or
three or four years. And if we are to consider the sentiments of the people
that we have heard in the various public hearings we conducted, I think we
may
have to opt for a President who would not run for reelection. If we follow that
route, Madam President, we may have to give him or her six years, because
a
four-year term will almost mean that we should agree to a reelection. So, if
this issue were to be settled by the Commission, I for one would go for it,
meaning, six years for the President, without immediate reelection, and later
on talk about other issues, like the Senators, whether they should be allowed
to have an immediate reelection or not. But whatever scheme we choose, it
looks like we have to have some adjustments to make because if the
proposed
Constitution will be approved, we will have an election sometime next year.
And we will also have an election in 1992 in case the Commission agrees on
the
proposed term of the incumbent President and Vice-President. On the whole,
I guess I have to go for Scheme No. I as recommended.
Salamat po.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Garcia be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Madam President.
The three schemes that have been presented to us have been helpful, but I
believe that in order to come up with a decision, we may have to break them
into
parts. What I consider important are: first, the term of the President
whether it will be six years without reelection or four years with reelection;
second, the term of Senators, Congressmen and the local officials and the
number of reelections, and finally, and perhaps more important, are the
other
features that could facilitate or strengthen popular participation like the
system of recall which, I think, we should try to discuss, the party list
system, the multiparty system, sectoral representation and the system of
initiative and referendum.
Allow me to express my thoughts on the question of the term of office then.
For me, the more important thing is that we should focus our attention on
how
to deepen democracy. And, therefore, there are two principles I would like to
share with everyone. One is the principle of no reelection in the presidency
and limited reelection in the other offices. The other is the principle of
popular participation which, I think, could be strengthened if we further give
substance to the five measures of popular participation that I mentioned
earlier.
Regarding the presidency, I think it is very clear that six years without
reelection is a very important measure that we can undertake to make the
person
who assumes the office of the President realize that he or she only has one
chance to become a good President. And I think that one opportunity is
important enough so that one puts all his best within that one period, and
that history will judge him and will not absolve him if he fails in that task.
Secondly, I support the frequency of election once every three years. As for
reelection, Senators will have six years with only one reelection and
Representatives and local officials, three years with only two reelections.
Let me explain why I am for no reelection or limited reelection. I know that
some of us here have been in politics for a long time and I do not wish to
offend them. But I simply think that there should be no special caste of
R.C.C. NO. 39
Friday, July 25, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:41 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
As we thank You today for Your love and mercy, we ask for Your wisdom so
that in the framing of our peoples Charter we will do what is right in Your
sight, and do it without fear or vacillation. Guide us to place in our
Constitution provisions that will, for the generations to come, give happiness
to
our fellowmen, hope to our youth, security for our fathers and mothers,
confidence to our farmers and fishermen, optimism to our workers and
assurance to
our prisoners.
When, in the appointed time, our task is finished, may we, alone or in the
company of our loved ones, rejoice in the thought that we have done our
best for
Your glory and for the lasting peace, prosperity and progress of our country.
This we pray in Jesus name. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present *
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present *
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present *
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Monsod
Present *
Villegas
Present *
very good frequency, considering that we will need more money for frequent
elections.
Thank you, Madam President.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for a few minutes.
It was 9:57 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:16 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Pieces of paper are being distributed for the voting.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
RECONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. DAVIDE: While the ballots are still being distributed, may I request a
reconsideration of the approval of the Journal of the Constitutional
Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. DAVIDE. By inadvertence, a correction should be made on the second
paragraph of page 48. Instead of Mr. Davide, it should be MR. SARMIENTO.
So, the
sentence should read: MR. SARMIENTO stated that Scheme No. I shall not
be beneficial to the country and the economy inasmuch as it would involve
elections
every two years.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the proper correction be made.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I confirm the correction made by the
honorable Commissioner Davide.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I ask the Chair a question concerning
Journal corrections.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople may proceed.
MR. OPLE: Day-to-day when we go over the Journals, there are certain minor
errors of style that we would like corrected. On the other hand, we feel guilty
about taking the precious time of the Commission when they have to be
requested on the floor.
What do we do in such instances, Madam President? If they are matters
essentially pertaining to style, may we just take them up with the President
or the
Secretariat?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, so long as the Chair is informed about it. But if it is one
of substance, then we will have to refer it to the body.
Is that all right?
MR. OPLE: Yes, thank you for that ruling, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, considering that the approval of the
Journal has been reconsidered actually I have informed the person in
charge of the
transcript to correct certain grammatical errors I might as well mention a
correction on page 28, third paragraph, line 14. After the words Public
Officers, the word to be used should be OF, instead of and.
On page 30, line 4, insert the word BE between the words can and held.
It should read can BE held.
On the same page, line 7, delete the word member.
On line 9, delete the words Member who and in lieu thereof insert
COMMITTEE WHICH. So, line 9 would read: . . . not a COMMITTEE WHICH
issues the
subpoena.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe this is what we could do. Inasmuch as the Journal of
the previous session, which is quite lengthy, is distributed on this very day,
we
can have a reservation that any other corrections be made the following day
so as to give time to the Commissioner to read the lengthy Journal.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may we request that somebody from the
Secretariat collect the ballots.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: May I be allowed to make a reservation for a minor
correction regarding the Journal of two days ago?
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman please submit it in writing?
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: In view of the fact that the approval of the Journal was
reconsidered and amendments were presented, I move that the Journal of
yesterdays
session, as amended, be approved.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: May I suggest that if there are clerical errors or some
inaccuracies in the Journal, the correction need not be made on the floor. We
will
just lose time. I think the Journal people will readily accept any correction
that pertains to the Members who are quoted and are referred to in the
Journal. If every Member, whose remarks were noted by the Journal, were to
ask the correction of the Journal during the deliberations, we will lose plenty
of time. I believe that the Journal will readily accept a matter of style or
correction of inaccurate or grammatical errors.
THE PRESIDENT: That was already indicated by the Chair. So long as the
Chair is also informed about it in writing, if possible, so as not to be mistaken
about the correction to be made.
Thank you.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. RAMA: There was a previous motion, Madam President, for the approval
of the Journal of yesterdays session, as amended.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
Journal of yesterdays session, as amended, is hereby approved.
At this juncture, the Members submitted their ballots.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand from Commissioner Romulo that after we
have decided or taken the vote on the term, the next issue would be whether
there
should be reelection or not?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, once we make the final choice, then we will
go into the elements of reelection or no reelection.
COUNTING OF BALLOTS
THE PRESIDENT: May we request the Secretary-General to count the votes
with the assistance of Mr. Roberto Nazareno.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Scheme No. I /////-///
Scheme No. II /////-/////-/////-/////-/////-//
Scheme No. VII /////-//
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 8 votes for Scheme No. I, 27 votes for
Scheme No. II, and 7 votes for Scheme No. VII; Scheme No II is approved.
(Applause)
MR. ROMULO: To summarize: Under Scheme No. II, the President and VicePresident shall have a term of six years; Senators, six years; Representatives,
three
years and local officials, three years. The frequency of election shall be every
three years.
We now go to the specific elements for each office concerned.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I just have a word, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I am willing to second the motion, but I will include the VicePresident.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, one by one.
MR. DAVIDE: I second the motion, without the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: I thought we already voted on Scheme No. II which clearly
defines that the term of the President is six years. But now there is a motion
that
the term of the President be six years.
MR ROMULO: It is a question of with reelection or without reelection.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what we will vote on.
MR. ROMULO: That is what we have to vote on.
REV. RIGOS: The Gentleman is only referring to whether or not there will be
reelection. We have already agreed on the six-year term?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, and I am using the terms that we have voted on.
REV. RIGOS: All right.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, could we resolve the prior question of
without reelection then, we can go on to without immediate reelection?
MR. ROMULO: I accept the amendment. I move that the term of the President
be six years without reelection.
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular motion of a sixyear term for the President without reelection . . . may I vote?
MR. ROMULO: No. (Laughter)
MR. RODRIGO: Now that we are voting on without reelection, is this without
prejudice to the Gentlemans bringing up again without immediate
reelection?
MR. ROMULO: I would assume, but if the majority votes for . . .
MR. RODRIGO: That makes a lot of difference, Madam President. So, this is
not final. We will vote first on without reelection but then after this, we
vote on the original proposal of without immediate reelection.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May I just clarify this, please correct me if I am wrong. The
proposition being presented by Commissioner Romulo is that no reelection
means no reelection forever. So, if you are not in favor, do not raise your
hand because if you desire one reelection for at least in the future after one
term, then that would be another proposition. Is that correct, Commissioner
Romulo?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, why do we not go back to the original
proposition of Commissioner Romulo because that is logically prior to the
proposition
presented now? The question of whether there can be no immediate
reelection should be prior to whether there can never be any reelection. I
think we should
first vote on that, whether there should be any immediate reelection or not.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Assuming that no one here is espousing the reelection of the
President after six years, perhaps the voting could be done this way those
in
favor of no immediate reelection as against those in favor of no reelection
whatsoever. Those are the two choices that we would be given because
apparently, no one here is espousing the reelection of the President without
restriction.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I correct Commissioner Guingona. I am for
a single reelection. I used to be against any reelection, but since Scheme No.
II
has prevailed, I would like to change my mind and seek a single reelection
for the President.
Will the Chair allow me to state briefly the reason for this unorthodox
position, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: There is a motion on the floor by Commissioner Romulo. To
me it appears very simple: Does the Gentleman favor or not favor a
perpetual
disqualification for one who has already been elected President for one term?
That is all.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So, let us vote on that and then we will go to the other
proposal. Is Commissioner Romulo abandoning his motion?
MR ROMULO: No, Madam President. I want the sense of the House, I am not
bound to this motion; I made a manifestation only to force a vote on the
issues.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, let us vote. The proposition is, no reelection for one
who has been elected President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, to be fair there are some Commissioners
who feel that the logical sequence should begin with no immediate
reelection, after
which we vote for no reelection.
THE PRESIDENT: I leave it to Commissioner Romulo.
MR. ROMULO: All right; I will stick by my original proposition. The President
shall have a term of six years without immediate reelection.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 32 votes in favor and 5 against; the proposition is
approved.
MR. ROMULO: For the sake of formality, I propose that the President shall
have a term of six years without any reelection.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular proposition, please
raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 15 votes in favor and 21 against; the proposition is lost.
MR. ROMULO: There is a third variation: The President shall have a term of
six years, with one immediate reelection.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, he can serve for 1 2 years?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (One
Member raised his hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 1 vote in favor and 20 against; the proposition is lost.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you, Madam President.
The next official will be the Vice-President, and we will go through the same
alternatives without immediate reelection, and with one immediate
reelection.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, with unlimited reelection.
MR. ROMULO: I will begin with Commissioner de los Reyes alternative.
Assuming someone is willing to always be the bridesmaid and never the
bride, I move
for the proposition that the Vice-President shall have a term of six years with
unlimited reelection for the same office.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 22 votes in favor and 8 against; the proposition is
approved.
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the effect is that the Vice-President has the
unlimited right to run for reelection as Vice-President and, of course,
necessarily, has the right to run for the presidency.
MP.. ROMULO: Yes. I do not see that we need the other alternatives, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: So, there is no need.
MR. ROMULO: Unless somebody disagrees.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair leaves it to the proponent.
What is the pleasure of Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, there is another problem regarding the
Vice-President. In case the Vice-President succeeds as President due to death
or
incapacity of the President, does he have the right to run for election in the
next succeeding election? I would like to call the attention of the body to
the provision of the United States Constitution regarding this. Of course, we
can just use this as an example or basis because in the United States, a
President has a term of four years with one reelection. No person who has
held the office of President or acted as President for more than two years of a
term, to which some other person was elected President, shall be elected to
the Office of President more than once. I think we can change this to read as
follows: NO PERSON WHO HAS HELD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR ACTED
AS PRESIDENT FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS OF A TERM, TO WHICH SOME
OTHER PERSON WAS ELECTED
PRESIDENT, SHALL BE ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IN THE
NEXT SUCCEEDING ELECTION.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I suggest that Commissioner Rodrigo put
that to a motion, as he had suggested during our caucus, and then we can
vote on the
alternatives.
MR. RODRIGO: I move that in the provision regarding the term of the VicePresident and also the President, the following provision be incorporated: NO
PERSON WHO HAS HELD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR ACTED AS
PRESIDENT FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS OF A TERM, TO WHICH SOME
OTHER PERSON WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT,
SHALL BE ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IN THE NEXT
SUCCEEDING ELECTION. This means that if he succeeded less than three
years, then he can run;
but if more than three years, he cannot run.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I would like to suggest an amendment to the amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Wait a minute, I have a comment. Suppose it is exactly three
years because that is more than two years of a term then he can run.
What is
one day between friends? So, if a Vice-President has already acted as
President for more than three years, then he has consolidated the powers of
the
President in his hands, and he can use those powers to assure his election.
However, let us take a case where he had succeeded only six months before
the
end of the term. He could run for President in the next subsequent years.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suggests that Commissioner Rodrigo write it down
so that we will not be confused in the voting.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: If it is all right with Commissioner Rodrigo, once he has
formulated it in a perfect manner, perhaps we should submit it to the
Committee on
the Executive. Then when we consider the provisions of the Article on the
Executive, that will be the time to take it up.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair has requested Commissioner Rodrigo to write it
down.
against, and under the Rules, one who voted against cannot ask for a
reconsideration.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take that up later on.
What is the pleasure of Commissioner Guingona?
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, Commissioner Garcia is not qualified to
ask for a reconsideration because he voted against, whereas I did not vote in
favor,
but abstained I wonder what the ruling of the Chair would be on this.
THE PRESIDENT: The Rules says that one who has voted in favor can seek for
a reconsideration. That is why we will call that particular incident later on.
The Chair is not making any ruling. We just like to proceed now to that of
Senators so that we can dispose of this matter.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, with regard to the Senators, we can again
use the same formula.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what is now before the body is six years for the Senator
with no immediate reelection.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
Before we go to the voting, before we go to the choice as to whether it will
be six years without reelection, I would like to advise the body that we have
approved Scheme No. II on the theory of election every three years. Under
this scheme, the Senators are divided only into two groups the first group
of
12 and the second group of 12 to attain an interval of three years in
frequency of election. The first election will be for the first and second groups
for a term of five years. This will be in 1992 and will coincide with the term of
the President, and the local officials for the first election shall have
a term of five years also. Therefore, by 1992, we shall elect a President, a
Vice-President, 24 Senators and the local officials. One-half of the Senators
will have a term of six years at the same time with the term of the President;
and one-half of the Senators will have a term of three years; and the local
officials will have a term of three years. From then on, we shall be able to
have a frequency of three years.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, after one term, they can run again for
Senator.
MR. ROMULO: But there has to be a gap, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this third proposal, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 9 votes in favor and 18 votes against; the proposal is lost.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, the final alternative is reelection without
limit.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the final alternative, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 18 votes in favor and 17 votes against; the final alternative
is approved.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May I suggest that we vote again on a multiple choice? There
are four choices so that each one will only have one vote.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, before acting on the motion of Commissioner
Monsod, we would like to find out what was the vote for the first option.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
run
again?
THE PRESIDENT: We will ask the Chairman of the Committee on the
Legislative to answer the question.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, Madam President, because two reelections mean
two successive reelections. So he cannot serve beyond nine consecutive
years.
MR. RODRIGO: Consecutively?
MR. DAVIDE: Consecutively.
MR RODRIGO: But after nine years he can let one. . .
MR. DAVIDE: He can rest. He can hibernate for three years.
MR. RODRIGO: And run again.
MR. DAVIDE: He can run again.
MR. RODRIGO: And again have nine years as a maximum.
MR. DAVIDE: I do not know if that is also the thinking of Commissioner Garcia
who is the main proponent of this proposal on two reelections. I would seek
the opinion of Commissioner Garcia for the record.
MR. GARCIA: I would actually prefer that after nine years he does not serve
anymore. But if the body wishes to get the consensus on this point, we can
perhaps divide.
MR. DAVIDE: I think we should submit this to a vote because the concept of
this Representation is really that it should be a total of nine consecutive
years only, similar to the 1935 provision on the presidency where a President
cannot serve for more than eight consecutive years.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anyone objecting to the interpretation given by the
Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative?
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, point of inquiry. Under Scheme No. II, the
first election of the Congressmen is for five years; the next election will be
for three years; so that is eight. If one is reelected for the second time, that
will give him 12 years. However, if the rule says that no Congressman will
serve for more than nine years, I think he will need only one reelection
because his first term is for five years if we apply Scheme No. II.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will vote only once between Scheme Nos. III and IV
Scheme No. III, with two reelections; and Scheme No. IV with three
reelections. Is that correct?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we call for a vote now? Is the floor ready?
MR. RODRIGO Yes Madam President we are ready for a vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Scheme No. III, please raise their
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are in favor of Scheme No. IV, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)
The results show 27 votes in favor of Scheme No. III and 12 votes in favor of
Scheme No. IV; Scheme No. III is approved.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: There was an issue raised a while ago because of the
objection raised by Commissioner Garcia as to the interpretation of Scheme
No. III. I
was wondering if there has already been a final decision on whether or not
these two reelections refer to immediate reelections.
THE PRESIDENT: That is why the Chair was requesting the Chairman of the
Committee on the Legislative to consolidate all these reports and then come
out
with the Committees own interpretation. The body will be guided by this or
we will vote on it.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Point of parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. Will what
we have decided on be translated into a provision or provisions in the
Constitution?
MR. DAVIDE: We will do that, Madam President.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:51 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: We are now ready to discuss the two issues, as indicated on
the blackboard, and these are Alternative No. I where there is no further
election
after a total of three terms and Alternative No. 2 where there is no
immediate reelection after three successive terms.
The proponents are now ready to explain briefly. I ask that Commissioner
Garcia be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized to speak on Alternative
No. 1.
MR. GARCIA: I would like to advocate the proposition that no further election
for local and legislative officials be allowed after a total of three terms
or nine years. I have four reasons why I would like to advocate this proposal,
which are as follows: (1) to prevent monopoly of political power; (2) to
broaden the choice of the people; (3) so that no one is indispensable in
running the affairs of the country; and (4) to create a reserve of statesmen
both
in the national and local levels. May I explain briefly these four reasons.
First: To prevent monopoly of political power Our history has shown that
prolonged stay in public office can lead to the creation of entrenched
preserves
of political dynasties. In this regard, I would also like to advocate that
immediate members of the families of public officials be barred from
occupying
the same position being vacated.
Second: To broaden the choice of the people Although individuals have the
right to present themselves for public office, our times demand that we
create
structures that will enable more aspirants to offer to serve and to provide the
people a broader choice of those who will serve them; in other words, to
broaden the choice so that more and more people can be enlisted to the
cause of public service, not just limited only to those who may have the
reason or
the advantage due to their position.
Third: No one is indispensable in running the affairs of the country After
the officials more than a decade or nearly a decade of occupying the same
public office, I think we should try to encourage a more team-oriented
consensual approach to governance favored by a proposal that will limit
public
servants to occupy the same office for three terms. And this would also favor
not relying on personalities no matter how heroic, some of whom, in fact, are
now in our midst.
Lastly, the fact that we will not reelect people after three terms would also
favor the creation of a reserve of statesmen both in the national and local
levels.
Turnovers in public office after nine years will ensure that new ideas and new
approaches will be welcome. Public office will no longer be a preserve of
conservatism and tradition. At the same time, we will create a reserve of
statesmen, both in the national and local levels, since we will not deprive the
community of the wealth of experience and advice that could come from
those who have served for nine years in public office.
Finally, the concept of public service, if political dynasty symbolized by
prolonged stay in particular public offices is barred, will have fuller meaning.
It will not be limited only to those who directly hold public office, but also to
consultative bodies organized by the people, among whom could be counted
those who have served in public office with accomplishment and distinction,
for public service must no longer be limited only to public office.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: May I just ask Commissioner Garcia for a clarification. Under
Alternative No. 1, which says: No further election after a total of three
terms, the three terms referred to here need not have been served
consecutively?
MR. GARCIA: The Commissioner is correct, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: In other words, whether there were interruptions, whether
the interruption took over a span of 20 or 25 years, as long as he has been in
that
office for a total of nine years, he is banned from running for the same office.
I do not think it is in our place today to make such a very important and
momentous decision with respect to many of our countrymen in the future
who may
have a lot more years ahead of them in the service of their country.
If we agree that we will make sure that these people do not set up structures
that will perpetuate them, then let us give them this rest period of three
years or whatever it is. Maybe during that time, we would even agree that
their fathers or mothers or relatives of the second degree should not run. But
let us not bar them for life after serving the public for a number of years.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: May I speak briefly to second Commissioner Monsod. Am I
allowed, Madam President?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Before Commissioner Ople speaks for one or two minutes to
second Commissioner Monsod, may I ask Commissioner Monsod one
question.
Madam President, this morning when we voted on the alternative that the
Senators will be allowed to run only for one reelection, so that means they
will be
serving a maximum period of 12 years, was not the intention to bar them
also forever, after 12 years?
MR. MONSOD: I was not sure. I thought that there might be opportunities for
them later, particularly since in the case of the President, we are even
allowing a person who attains the highest political position on this land to
serve again after a period of rest.
MR. BENGZON: That is what I would like to find out. When we voted this
morning barring the Senator from running for the same office after the first
reelection, I thought that after 12 years of service, he is barred forever. That
is the impression I had. Am I wrong or am I correct?
MR. MONSOD: I think that is the reason we are having a debate his
afternoon, precisely in order to clarify the perceptions of people and finally
decide
what it should be.
MR. BENGZON: But we were just talking of the term of the Congressmen and
the local officials.
MR. MONSOD: I think before lunch break, we decided to expand it and to
decide this afternoon on what our interpretation should be with respect to
the ban
on reelection.
MR. BENGZON: So that means we will decide again on the term of the
Senators after this?
THE PRESIDENT: In fact, the Chair requested the Chairman of the Committee
on the Legislative to consolidate all these votings that we made to see what
will
really come out of them.
MR. BENGZON: Yes Madam President.
Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I think we should separate the situation of a Senator or a
Congressman as a Member of the legislative body a Senator, one of a
composition
of 24 Members; a Congressman, one of a composition of 200 or 250
Members from a governor or a mayor of a local government unit who is
only one in power
Just like the President, he is only one in power.
I think we should distinguish or vote separately, because there may be some
who would be supporting the proposition that a local executive, governor or
mayor who has served for nine successive years should no longer be allowed
reelection even if there be a rest period of one term.
Whereas, with regard to the Members of Congress, let us determine whether
the majority sentiment is that a Member of the Lower House after serving for
nine
years or a Member of the Senate after serving for 12 years will no longer be
allowed reelection, even if there is an, intermediate period of
non-incumbency.
Madam President, I feel that the two situations are different. A Member of the
Congress is only one of so many members; whereas, a local executive is
similar to the President, only on a very limited sense. He is one chief and,
perhaps, a powerful executive. That is my suggestion, that we should
distinguish or vote separately so that we will not confuse the two issues.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I agree with the honorable Commissioner Padilla that we
should decide separately on the term of office of the Senators, the
Congressmen and the
local officials.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I would like to call attention to the fact that
when we say local officials that term embraces not only the provincial
governor and the municipal mayor but also the vice-governor, vice-mayor,
members of the provincial board and members of the municipal and city
councils. So
if we will make a distinction now between Members of Congress and local
officials, we might have to make subdistinctions again between the mayor
and the
vice-mayor; between the vice-mayor and the councilors; between the
governor and the vice-governor; and between the two higher officials and the
provincial
board members. We might get too involved in distinctions, Madam President.
.THE PRESIDENT: Maybe it will be of help if we just remind ourselves that
what we have before us now is the report of the Committee on the
Legislative.
Therefore, maybe we should confine ourselves first to what is covered by the
report which is the term of office of the Senators and the Representatives.
And with respect to the local officials, let us await the report of the
Committee on Local Governments as to its recommendation on this matter.
MR. RODRIGO: As a matter of fact, I will go further than that. It is my belief,
as regards local officials, that we should leave this matter to the
legislature.
THE PRESIDENT: So what is the pleasure now of the Acting Floor Leader or of
the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative?
MR. RODRIGO: I wonder if the two proponents, Madam President, will agree
that we first talk about the term of office of the Representatives because we
are
now discussing the legislative department.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I will agree really that this matter should relate only to the term
of office of the Representatives.
THE PRESIDENT: But are we agreed on these two proposals the one of
Commissioner Garcia where there is no further election after a total of three
terms
and the other where there is no immediate reelection after three successive
terms?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, originally if I remember right, the Commission
decided to consider the synchronization of elections. And from that original
commitment, we proceeded to fix the terms and decided related questions
within the context of synchronization. Are we now abandoning the original
task of
synchronization which could only be fully settled in terms of delimitations on
the proposed terms of the President and the Vice-President, the Members of
Congress and the local officials, or do we want to postpone the
synchronization task to a later time after we hear from the Committee on
Local Governments
and the other concerned committees?
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Acting Floor Leader say to this particular
question of Commissioner Ople?
MR. ROMULO: In a way, Madam President, we have settled the
synchronization task, because we have decided on the officials absolute
terms. All we are
really talking about now is whether or not they are eligible for reelection, and
I think those are separable issues.
MR. OPLE: If they are separable, and we have already settled the
synchronization task, then I think that is something to be thankful about. But
considering
the immediate business at hand, is it the wish of the Acting Floor Leader that
Where does Alternative No. 1 stand now? May I ask the proponent where it
stands now? Is it for nine years or for two reelections as we approved this
morning? May I ask the proponent of Alternative No. 1, Madam President.
MR. GARCIA: I am sorry but I think there are two different questions here: for
the term of office of the Senators, it is a maximum of 12 years; for the
Representatives, it is a maximum of nine years.
MR. DE CASTRO: What happens now to what we approved this morning? We
approved Scheme No. II which provides a term of five years for the
Representatives.
MR. GARCIA: I am sorry again, but for the first election, the term of office will
have to be fixed by the Commission on Elections simply for adjustment
purposes because of the current term of the President, for synchronization
and for transitory purposes. But once it is regularized, it will be different.
MR. DE CASTRO: Is it a total of nine years?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, it is still a total of nine years.
MR. DE CASTRO: Excluding those who were first elected under Scheme No. II?
MR. GARCIA: Proper adjustments will have to be made for the first election.
MR. DE CASTRO: Who will make the proper adjustments?
MR. GARCIA: The Commission on Elections will make the proper adjustments.
MR. DE CASTRO: And what proper adjustments can it do?
MR. GARCIA: To make sure that the term is not more than nine years, if
possible and if not, we can give them a term of more or less one or two
years,
depending on how it can be adjusted.
MR. DE CASTRO: So it is not exactly nine years. It is either more or less in
order to adjust to Scheme No. II and come out with what we approved this
morning.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. GARCIA: Could I please answer Commissioner Ople, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may please proceed.
MR. GARCIA: Very briefly, I think there are two principles involved in the first
proposal. First, the recognition of the ambivalent nature of political
power. Second, the recognition of alternative forms of public service. I think
what is important for this Commission to remember is that we must learn
from
the lessons of our recent past. We must see public service primarily, if not
exclusively, as a service to the people rather than the opportunity to
accumulate political power. Prolonged stay in a specific public office has
been utilized in our past political history as the base through which political
dynasties or vested interests pursue limited goals. Regarding the question of
the political parties, in fact, it will encourage the constant renewal of new
blood in party leadership, in approach, in style and ideas. I think this is
healthy for a pluralist and multiparty democracy.
Commissioner Ople mentioned four of our distinguished colleagues who are,
in fact, political giants of the previous generation. That is why I mentioned
that there are among us political heroes in some senses, but they are rare
men. They belong to a rare breed. What I am trying to say is this: that we
must
now try to look at alternative forms of public service. Public service cannot
be limited solely to staying in public office. It is abundantly clear from
the history of martial law years a good number of leaders, of men who
were in jail, of men who were in the streets, fought the martial law
dictatorship
outside of public office. They were not holding public office but they fought,
they struggled, they made people aware. What I am trying to say is that we
must be conscious and bring this awareness that public service can also
mean, for example, belonging to consultative bodies, to peoples councils in
different localities in the nation that bring about new forms of service and
leadership. Those who have more experience in the legislature and other
offices can precisely bring this idea of a different form of service to the
people.
MR. OPLE: One-sentence rejoinder, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I agree with all that Commissioner Garcia said that we should seek
them as indeed we are seeking them through means other than the
perpetual
disqualification of elected public officials.
Thank you.
MR ABUBAKAR: Madam President.
wishes of the people of that district? Let one Gentleman answer me and it be
on
record that he is against my position. As I said, the voice of the people is the
voice of God. We should not dictate what the people want. Why should we
arrogate unto ourselves the right of that district or that province to choose
its leaders and limit their total number of years of service to only nine
years?
I would not speak for Batangas nor speak for Laguna, because their people
have the right to choose their own Representatives for a term that they think
is
appropriate. We cannot speak for Sulu or even for Cotabato because the
situation is different. Maybe we will have more leaders or maybe we will have
only
one of our faith and our confidence. Why limit his total number of years of
service to nine years?
If we grant unto the electorate the right of suffrage, their right to determine
their leaders, let us not limit the years of service of their candidates to
mere six or nine years. Let the people judge if they want him for 15 or 18
years because the choice of the people is demonstrated. Tayabas wanted
President
Quezon for 30 years so they had him for 30 years. Cebu wanted President
Osmea for 25 years, and for 30 years they had him.
Many of us here who are from Luzon will not even want to go to the Visayas
or to Mindanao. But how can we determine the temperament of the people
there,
their reactions, their prejudices, their weaknesses and their passions?
I think this matter of term of the Members of the legislature should be left to
the people themselves to decide. As I close, let me reiterate that the
voice of the people is the voice of God. We people here are religious; we are
not communists, so let us not limit a Representative or a local official to
only one term.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Tan be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: I will just have one minute.
MR. GASCON: I think the issue of whether the Senators could run again for
election after their two consecutive terms or 12 years after a lapse of a
period
of time has not yet been finalized.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg the Commissioners pardon.
MR. GASCON: Is this voting just for Congressmen?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
The Secretary-General will now please proceed to count the votes.
COUNTING OF BALLOTS
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Madam President, we have here 43 ballots cast.
We will now start the counting.
Alternative No. 1 no further election after a total of three
terms: /////-/////-/////-//
Alternative No. 2 no immediate reelection after three successive
terms: /////-/////-/////-/////-/////-/
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 17 votes for Alternative No. I and 26 votes
for Alternative No. 2; Alternative No. 2 is approved.
What does the Acting Floor Leader say?
MR. ROMULO: Alternative No. 2 has won, Madam President. It seems there
are some doubts as to the term of office of the Senators, so I propose that we
similarly vote on that to end any doubt. It was my understanding this
morning that when we voted for the term of office of the Senators, they
would not be
perpetually disqualified.
THE PRESIDENT: From the transcripts, it appears here that with respect to
Senators, 22 votes went to Scheme No. II; that is, with one reelection. This is
already a majority. So, does the Acting Floor Leader propose that we vote
again?
MR. ROMULO: The question is whether or not that will be perpetual, Madam
President, or after resting for six years they can run again. That is the
question
that is not answered. I am talking of the Senators.
THE PRESIDENT: This morning, Scheme No. I, without reelection, has 3 votes;
Scheme No. II, with one reelection 22 votes; Scheme No. III, no limit on
reelection 17votes.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we first clarify this from the Secretary-General?
MR. ROMULO: The question is whether or not in voting for the term of six
years with one reelection, the Senator is perpetually disqualified, so that is a
similar question to what we had posed with regard to the House of
Representatives.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, after serving with one reelection, whether or
not he is perpetually disqualified after serving 12 years?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Or, if after one reelection, he is perpetually disqualified or he
can hibernate the very word used for six years and then run again for
reelection but not consecutive, not immediate. In other words, he is entitled
to one immediate reelection.
REV. RIGOS: Another point, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: And then, after that, if there is a gap, when he is not a
Senator, then he can run for the same office.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: In relation to that, if he will be allowed to run again as Senator
after a period of hibernation, we have to clarify how long that should be.
It, could be three years, because in the proposed scheme, every three years
we can elect the Senators.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, Madam President, it can be three years.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: I will suspend the session again so as to allow the parties to
compare with the Acting Floor Leader so that we will know what we are going
to vote on.
The session is suspended.
It was 3:58 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:05 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, we are now ready to vote on the question of
the Senators, and the schemes are as follows: The first scheme is, no further
election after two terms; the second scheme is, no immediate reelection
after two successive terms.
Madam President, inasmuch as the principles applicable here are the same
as those for the House of Representatives, I move that we go directly to the
voting and forego any further discussions.
THE PRESIDENT: Please distribute the ballots for this particular item for
Senators.
Are we ready now?
The Secretary-General will please count the ballots.
COUNTING OF BALLOTS
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: We have 43 ballots here, Madam President. We
shall now begin to count.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Scheme No. I /////-/////-//
Scheme No. II /////-/////-/////-/////-/////-/////-//
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 12 votes for Scheme No. I and 32 votes for
Scheme No. II; Scheme No. II is approved.
All the results will be considered by the Committee on the Legislative in
preparation of their report.
So, can we leave this matter now?
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I have a clarificatory question to the
Chairman of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon will please proceed.
MR. GASCON: So, we have just approved the scheme where they can run
again after a rest period. The question is basically after serving 12 years.
What will
be the rest period of that particular Senator? In our scheme, there will: be
elections every three years, but the term for Senators is six years. So, after
12 years in the service, will he be resting for six years or one whole term or
for one-half term only, since the next election will be after three years?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I already answered that question upon
interpellation of Commissioner Rigos.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Rodrigo please repeat it for
Commissioner Gascons satisfaction?
MR. RODRIGO: The question asked was, if the interval is only three years,
may an ex-Senator run for election? And the answer is yes.
MR. GASCON: So, it is just a three-year interval; he will not rest for one whole
term?
MR. RODRIGO: That is the maximum, as long as there is that gap of three
years. But, of course, he can run after six years; after nine years, he might
not
run at all.
MR. GASCON: I spoke to the Chairman of the Committee during a suspension
and he gave me a different interpretation, that it will be a six-year rest, not
three years.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, that was a personal view that I expressed
because the reference really is two terms. Therefore, after two successive
terms, he
cannot run in the next election for another term, so he has to rest for one
term. And the term of the Senator is six years.
THE PRESIDENT: It is six years.
MR. DAVIDE: That was a personal view, but it seems that there is another
view on that. I think the House should also decide on that. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suggests that this matter on whatever position
the Commission is taking on this particular question be clarified, so that
when we
take it up again, we will consider the report, and then we can vote on that.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If there will be amendments, then we can accept the
amendments.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee will take that up, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
We can proceed now to the other issue. Will it be the party list or the
multiparty system?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO. Before going to the other issue, this morning, I presented an
amendment regarding the Vice-President if he succeeds as President. Upon
the
advice of the other Members, I decided to just refer this to the Chairman of
the Committee on the Executive. So, I referred the written amendment to
Commissioner Sumulong as Chairman of the Committee on the Executive.
And so, I withdraw my amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the motion of Commissioner
Monsod to reconsider the decision that was arrived at this morning, please
raise their
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 32 votes in favor and 3 against; the motion is approved.
MR. MONSOD: In view of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Rodrigo . . .
MR. LAUREL: Madam President, iyon pong pinagbotohan kanina, ilagay na po
ninyong nag-abstain ako.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the reconsideration.
MR. RODRIGO: On the motion for reconsideration?
THE PRESIDENT: There is one abstention.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I believe that Commissioner Rodrigo has
introduced an amendment that the prohibition should only be beyond 12
consecutive
years.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, to harmonize it with the President, 6 consecutive years
after a lapse of one term, he can run; the same for the Senators and the
Congressmen.
MR. MONSOD: I would accept the amendment, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the motion to be approved is for the Vice-President to be
eligible for reelection to serve for 12 consecutive years. Is that correct,
Commissioner Monsod? Am I taking it correctly?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, that would be the maximum. He cannot
serve for more than 12 consecutive years.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify, after the lapse of one term, can he be eligible
again to run for Vice-President?
not want the President to control the nation and govern the people for more
than six years, with the idea that he should never return to the presidency
even if he allows another, probably of his own party, to run in the meantime
because that will not cure the evil of reelection on the part of the
President. In other words, Madam President, I want to eliminate that word
immediate.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, first, I think there should be a motion for
reconsideration, and I would like to ask Commissioner Padilla if he voted with
the majority, because only one who voted with the majority can present a
motion for reconsideration.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, my early remark was that I voted for the
President without reelection. But it turns out that what was approved was:
President without immediate reelection. I did not vote for that. I also
mentioned that I was seeking for a reconsideration.
MR. RODRIGO: How is that? But, precisely, the Rules says that only one who
voted with the majority can file a motion for reconsideration.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I voted with the majority and I can file that
motion.
MR. RODRIGO: Then I second the motion. This is just to follow the Rules.
VOTING
THE-PRESIDENT: This morning I was reviewing our transcripts what I
said was: Is that clear, without immediate reelection? And then we got the
vote
and the results showed 32 votes in favor and 5 against. In other words, 32
Members were in favor of the phrase without immediate reelection.
There being a motion to reconsider, let us vote on this motion, whether we
shall reconsider the decision that was arrived at this morning on the Office of
the President.
As many as are in favor of the motion to reconsider, please raise their hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 22 votes in favor and 5 against; the motion is approved.
limit ourselves to the two choices that have been expressed so far. Actually,
when I came here this morning, I was in favor of a four-year term plus
re-election. But, of course, the four-year term did not prosper. But now that
we have reconsidered, and after hearing the eloquence of Commissioners
Ople
and Abubakar when they talked about peoples power and since every other
official has been given the privilege of being reelected, from the VicePresident
down to the local officials, I was wondering if I could propose a term of six
years, which we have approved, with one immediate reelection.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I think there is a motion now on the floor by
Commissioner Padilla. So, it is up to him whether he wants to accept the
amendment or not.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: I have one word in support of the amendment of Commissioner
Padilla. I believe we did not conduct the public hearings throughout the
Philippines for no purpose at all. We conducted those public hearings so that
in our deliberations of many issues in this hall, we may be guided by the
wish of our people. If one will read the reports on all the public hearings we
conducted throughout the land, the vast majority of our people do not favor
a President serving beyond a term of six years. This is why I believe we have
to respect this wish of the people so I support the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Padilla.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, if I am still considered as the proponent of
the amendment together with Commissioner Rigos, I will reject or I do not
accept
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Guingona.
MR. GUINGONA: Would that prejudice my proposal?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman will take full support and afterwards this
would be the second proposal that will be voted upon.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: I also would like to state briefly my stand in favor of the
reconsidered motion; that is, a permanent ban for the President to run again.
I
think we all know that the presidency, especially here in the Philippines, has
become in a sense very omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent that even
if
we bar him to run for immediate reelection, like it was stated a while ago, we
become so imaginative and clever as politicians. There is always a way for
him to see to it that somebody in his own party would run; in a sense, he is
the one still running. And then after the lapse of that particular period, he
can again grasp the power for himself.
I think what we are doing here is a reaction against what we saw in the last
repressive regime in our country. And so, Madam President, I would vote for a
permanent ban on the President.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
Commissioner Rigos has adverted to the so-called reactions of the people in
the public hearings that we have conducted. I have gone over all the minutes
of
those public hearings furnished us. This particular issue was never brought to
the people. The only question there was: Would there be no reelection? They
said yes. But this particular issue about immediate reelection was never
brought up; perhaps, in some, but it was always just six years with no
reelection.
But if the matter were to be explained to them that there may be no
immediate reelection it would have been different. That was not brought
to their
attention. That is not reflective of the collective sentiment of the people. We
cannot proceed on conjectures and surmises and present that to the floor as
the collective will and sentiment of the people.
Secondly, with respect to the situation in Mexico, may I know from the
distinguished Gentleman what was the term of office of the President of
Mexico? Was
it four years or six years?
MR. PADILLA: It was six years without reelection.
MR. REGALADO: It is said that the danger is, the incumbent President
knowing that he is disqualified for immediate reelection may resort to the
stratagem
of having somebody, a pawn of his, elected during the intervening period
and then later seek reelection. What do we have the 24 Senators for? What
do we
have the 250 Congressmen for? Can these brilliant stalwarts of the
legislature not see through that scheme and denounce it to the public? We
have a new set
of electorate. They are conscienticized, civicized and politicized. Is this
not a very bad reflection on the people, that they are incapable of
seeing through the stratagems and maneuvers of such a President?
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, may I speak briefly in support of
Commissioner Padillas position?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: The problem we face here is the problem of the accumulation of
power in the Office of the President. Furthermore, the problem is not the
accumulation of power in one man, but the accumulation of power in the
dominant party. The problem in Mexico is that the Partido Revolucionano
Institacional is the dominant party manipulating the succession to the
presidency in such a way that the Tapado, the person chosen by the
President to go
on to the next term, is a succession in the dominant political party itself.
There are many parties in Mexico right now, but the one dominant party
determines the countrys future and political direction. That is what we want
to avoid, not just the accumulation of political power in the person of the
President but in one dominant party. And I think this is a very important thing
that we can stop now, by making sure that no reelection takes place. That
is why I am supporting the position of Commissioner Padilla.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I would like to point out that when we try to disbar or
disqualify people perpetually as a reaction to a past experience, we may also
be
closing the possibility for good people to be reelected when there is
necessity for them in the future. If I remember right, de Gaulle was called
from
retirement in his old age. There may be cases in the future, we do not know,
when the Philippines may need somebody to return like that. So, what I am
trying to say is, let us not see only the negative but also the positive aspects
of a proposition.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I be recognized again?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I went to the public hearings in different provinces, and it is
true many people were for the term of six years without reelection.
Invariably, it was premised on the fact that the President has such
tremendous powers that if he seeks immediate reelection while he is the
incumbent
President, he can use those tremendous powers to have himself reelected.
But what we are talking about here is not immediate reelection. What we are
talking about is: Can a President who has served his term run again after six
years? During those six years, he was not the President of the country. I was
about to mention de Gaulle. I might mention Ramon Magsaysay who was
very much loved by our people. Suppose he did not die and he was elected
for six years.
During those years, he conducted himself like he did before he died, and the
love of the people for him would be the same as when he died, but he can no
longer run for immediate reelection. But six years later, the people might
say: Well, we want him again. Should we deprive our people of that wish?
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we now ready to vote on the proposal of Commissioner
Padilla? Will Vice-President Padilla please state his proposal?
MR. PADILLA: The proposal, Madam President, is to eliminate the word
immediate, so that the President shall have a six-year term without
reelection. I
understand that in the public hearings, the people were all in favor of that
proposition. A few of us now wish to insert the word immediate which was
never approved or considered by the people favorably.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the effect of this is, the President will serve for six years
without reelection. That carries a total ban on his being elected again at
any future time to the position of President.
MR. PADILLA: That is correct. It is a continuing prohibition for reelection.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute please. Can we vote by ballot or just by hand?
What is the pleasure of the proponent?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the fact is, the proposal of Vice-President Padilla
was approved by a majority vote of 26. So actually, the proposal of
Commissioner Guingona would really be a reconsideration of the action taken
by the body on Vice-President Padillas amendment.
MR. GUINGONA: If that formality is required, Madam President, I would like to
move for a reconsideration, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the Commissioners vote with the 26?
MR. ROMULO: Did the Commissioner vote affirmatively?
MR. GUINGONA: If we are talking about the motion for reconsideration, I
voted in favor, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: No, did the Commissioner vote in favor of the motion of VicePresident Padilla?
MR. GUINGONA: No, because, precisely, what we should consider is the vote
for reconsideration.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the rule says that one who seeks a reconsideration must
have voted with the majority. That is why the Chair is asking if the
Gentleman
has voted with the 26 who voted in favor of Commissioner Padillas proposal.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I abstained because I was made to
understand, when I stood up earlier, that I could present my proposal;
otherwise, I would
have voted yes in order to be able to ask for a reconsideration. I did not
know. I thought all along that the action of the Commission in approving the
motion for reconsideration would open the floor to proposals other than that
which may have been submitted by our Vice-President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: To settle the case once and for all, may I respectfully move
that the matter be put to a vote.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: To facilitate the proceedings, it is my humble submission
that the motion has been rendered moot and academic by the approval of
that
amendment by Commissioner Padilla.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We will just put to a vote this motion to reconsider.
As many as are in favor of the motion of Commissioner Guingona to
reconsider the action we have just taken this afternoon, please raise their
hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 10 votes in favor and 31 against; the motion is lost.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, we are ready now to discuss party list, and
for that purpose, may I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
Do we need the Chairman and the members of the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I would just like to revive for the moment a
motion for amendment that was deferred earlier and then perhaps, if there
are
questions regarding the party list system as a consequence of that
amendment, we would be very happy to yield to any question.
My proposed amendment is on page 1, line 29.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 1, line 29.
MR. MONSOD: The amendment would start after the word elected.
May I read the proposed amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. MONSOD: The last line would then read: shall be elected THROUGH A
PARTY LIST SYSTEM OF REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL OR SECTORAL
PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS.
May I repeat? Line 29, which presently reads: shall be elected from the
sectors and party list, will now read: shall be elected THROUGH A PARTY
LIST
SYSTEM OF REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL OR SECTORAL PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: May we know the position of the Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, before accepting the proposed amendment,
the Committee would like to get some clarifications.
When the proponent speaks of OR SECTORAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS,
is he referring to any sector which the law may subsequently define?
MR. MONSOD: My amendment is that the parties that will be listed may
either be national, regional, or sectoral parties or organizations. That means
that
any sector or any party may register provided it meets the criteria of the
Commission on Elections and the Constitution on prohibited organizations
and the
requirements for registration. In other words, the party list system that is
being advocated by this amendment is a system that opens up the list to any
regional, national or sectoral party. There are no limitations, except the
general criteria and requirements for parties or organizations as we have
discussed during the interpellation and debate on the COMELEC, if the
Chairman will recall.
MR. DAVIDE: Another question for clarification, Madam President.
The law itself which shall implement the party list system cannot exclude a
sector, if the sector would wish to register under the party system.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: But it has to be a sectoral party or organization.
MR. MONSOD: No, it need not be a sectoral party or organization. It can be a
political party; it can be a regional party; or it can be a sectoral party or
organization.
I also would like to manifest that my suggestion is that the detailed
implementation of the party list system should be or may be an appended
ordinance to
this Constitution, so that the Commission on Elections may implement
immediately or in the next elections after the ratification of the Constitution
the
party list system for purposes of the legislature.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee would like to be clarified on this.
Do we understand the proponent correctly that this party list system is not
necessarily synonymous to sectoral representation?
MR. MONSOD: No, it is not necessarily synonymous, but it does include the
right of sectoral parties or organizations to register, but it is not exclusive
to sectoral parties or organizations.
MS. AQUINO: And that it does not likewise reserve any institutional seat for
any sector? In other words, it only enables it to be a part of the party list
if it has the capacity to do so, but it does not reserve any seat for the
sectors.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, this is not a reserve seat system.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: May I be permitted to ask some questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. LERUM: Under the proposed amendment, are the sectors included?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. LERUM: Do I understand from this amendment that the representatives
of the sector will be voted on by all the voters of the Philippines and not by
voters coming from the sectors themselves?
MR. MONSOD: What the voters will vote on is the party, whether it is UNIDO,
Christian Democrats, BAYAN, KMU or Federation of Free Farmers, not the
individuals. When these parties register with the COMELEC, they would
simultaneously submit a list of the people who would sit in case they win the
required number of votes in the order in which they place them. Let us say
that this Commission decides that of those 50 seats allocated under the
party
list system, the maximum for any party is 10 seats. At the time of
registration of the parties or organizations, each of them submits 10 names.
Some may
submit five, but they can submit up to 10 names who must meet the
qualifications of candidates under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election
Code. If
they win the required number of votes, let us say they win 400,000 votes,
then they will have one seat. If they win 2 million votes, then they will have
five seats. In the latter case, the party will nominate the first five in its list;
and in case there is one seat, the party will nominate the number one
on the list.
But as far as the voters are concerned, they would be voting for party list or
organizations, not for individuals.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, in view of the explanation, I am objecting to
this amendment because it is possible that the labor sector will not be
represented considering that those who will vote are all the voters of the
Philippines. In other words, the representative of labor will be chosen by all
the electors of the Philippines, and that is not correct. My contention is that
the sectoral representative must be selected by his own constituents, and
for that reason, I am objecting to this amendment.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, this is only for clarification.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Para sa marginalized sector, kung saan kaisa ang magbubukid,
ang Sections 5 at 31 ang pinakamahalaga dito. Sinasabi namin na hindi na
mahalaga
kung ang porma ng pamahalaan ay presidential o parliamentary; ang
pinakamahalaga ay ang substance.
Sinasabi naming nasa amin ang people, pero wala sa amin ang power. At
sinasabi nga ni Commissioner Bacani, noong tayo ay nagsisimula pa lamang,
70
porsiyento ang mga dukha at limang porsiyento lamang ang naghaharing uri.
Ngunit ang iniwan niyang tanong ay ito: Sino ang may hawak ng political
power?
Ang limang porsiyento lamang.
Kaya para sa amin, ito ang pinakamahalaga. Sa nakita ko kasi sa party list ay
ganito: Sa bawat 200,000 tao ay magkakaroon tayo ng isang legislative
district, at ang kabuuang upuan ay 198. Ang ibig sabihin, ito iyong
nakareserba sa mga political parties tulad ng UNIDO, NP, PNP; LP, PDPLaban, at iba pa,
ngunit puwede rin itong pumasok sa party list; puwede ring madominahan
ang lehislatura at mawala ang sectoral.
Iyon lamang ang pinupunto ko. Sa panig namin, dapat itong ibigay sa
marginalized sector sapagkat ito ang katugunan sa tinatawag naming
peoples power o
kapangyarihang pampulitika. Ang ibig lamang naming sabihin ay ganito:
Mula doon sa isang political system na nagpapalawig ng feudal or elite
structure
nagtungo tayo sa isang grass-roots and participatory democracy. Ibig naming
mula doon sa politics of personality ay pumunta tayo sa politics of issue. Ano
ang ibig naming sabihin? Kaming marginalized sector pag bumoboto, ang
pinagpipilian lang namin sa two-party system ay ang lesser evil. Ngunit pag
pumasok
na kami dito, ang Section 5 ang pinakamahalaga sa amin. Ang bobotohan
namin ay ang katangian ng aming organisasyon. Ang bobotohan namin ay
ang issue at ang
platform naming dinadala at hindi na iyang lesser evil o ang tinatawag nating
personality. Para sa amin ito ay napakahalaga.
Kung sina Commissioners de Castro at Uka ay nakiusap sa inyo, ano ba iyong
isa pa para sa isang kaibigan?
Ang nakikiusap sa inyong harapan, kagalanggalang kong mga kasama, ay
ang marginalized sector. Alam ba ninyong kapag itoy naipasok, hindi na
natin
kailangang mangampanya upang mapagtibay itong Saligang Batas? Ang
sasabihin ng marginalized sector ay ganito: Ang Saligang Batas na ginawa
ng Con-Com ay
amin sapagkat ito ay nagbibigay ng kapangyarihang pampulitika at
pangkabuhayan sa amin. Ito ay nagbibigay ng soberiniya sa amin. Kaya
hindi na natin
kailangan pang mangampanya.
Ito lang ang hinihingi namin sa inyo. Kung kinakailangang manikluhod ang
marginalized sector na aking kinakatawan, gagawin ko sa inyo maipasa
lamang ito
sapagkat ito ang kabuuan ng tinatawag nating peoples power. Sabi nga sa
Lukas 6:20, Hindi lahat ng tumatawag sa Akin ng Panginoon ay
makararating sa
kaharian ng Ama. Sa mga naniniwala sa peoples power, ang sinasabi nila:
Ang makararating sa kaharian ng Ama ay ang gumagawa ayon sa kalooban
ng Ama.
Iyong doer. Ang ibig sabihin nito ay magkakaroon ng laman, dugo at buhay
ang peoples power kapag ito ay ipinasok natin. Kapag inilagay natin ang
party
list, papasukin ng political parties. Mangingibabaw at kakainin din niyan
hanggang mawala ang sektor.
Bibigyan ko kayo ng isang halimbawa. Paano mananalo ang-urban poor na
pinamumunuan ni Ka Eddie Guazon? May panalo ba iyan? Paano mananalo
ang kapalit ni
Macling Dulag, tulad ni Ka Mario sa tribal Filipinos? Pero kung ilalaan natin
ito, ang peoples power ay magkakaroon ng dugo, laman at buhay. Uulitin ko,
kung si Commissioner de Castro at si Commissioner Uka ay inyong
pinagbigyan, pagbigyan din ninyo ako at ang marginalized sector, na ang
kapangyarihang ito
ay huwag na nating ibigay pa sa political parties. Ibigay na natin ito sa
marginalized sector.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA. : Would Honorable Monsod yield to an amendment to his
amendment? I would like to propose the following amendment, also for lines
28 to 29:
THIRTY PERCENT OF THE SEATS SHALL BE ALLOCATED EQUALLY BETWEEN
THE SECTORS AND THE PARTY LIST OF REGISTERED PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS. May I explain why I
am making this amendment to his amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. VILLACORTA: We already have an Upper House which will likely be
dominated by charismatic nationally known political figures. We have
allocated 80
percent of the Lower House for district representatives who will most likely
win on the basis of economic and political power. We are purportedly
allowing
20 percent of the Lower House seats to be allocated to representatives of
parties and organizations who are not traditional politicians. And yet,
because
we subject the sectoral candidates to the rough-and-tumble of party politics
and pit them against veteran politicians, the framers of the Constitution are
actually predetermining their political massacre.
Madam President, the party list system in the form that it is being proposed
will only exacerbate the frustrations of the marginalized sectors. In this our
reborn democracy, I think we should turn the political revolution of February
MR. MONSOD: May I ask some questions on the amendment before I answer?
Would the honorable Commissioner yield?
MR. VILLACORTA: Gladly.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod may proceed.
MR. MONSOD: Would the Commissioner tell us which sectors he considers
marginalized and should be given, in effect, the concept of reserve seats? In
other
words, we would exclude everybody else who would not belong to these
sectors.
MR. VILLACORTA: This can be a subject of discussion now, but offhand, I can
think of the following classification: (1) rural and urban workers; (2) farmers
and fishermen; (3) cultural communities; (4) women; (5) youth; and (6)
professionals, including artists and health workers.
MR. MONSOD: What about the professionals?
MR. TADEO: Puwede bang tumulong ako para makita natin kung alin ang
tinutukoy kong marginalized sector? Baka makatulong ako kay Commissioner
Villacorta.
MR. MONSOD: Sige po. The Commissioner may go ahead.
MR. TADEO: In deciding which sectors should be represented, the criteria
should adhere to the principle of social justice and popular representation.
On
this basis, the criteria have to include:
1. The number of people belonging to the sector,
2. The extent of marginalization, exploitation and deprivation of social and
economic rights suffered by the sector;
3. The absence of representation in the government, particularly in the
legislature, through the years;
4. The sectors decisive role in production and in bringing about the basic
social services needed by the people.
Narito po iyong marginalized sectors:
(1) Peasants 34 million; (2) labor sector 12.235 million; (3) urban poor
5 million; (4) teachers 500,000; (5) health workers and other
professional
artists and cultural workers 465,966; (6) youth 14.6 million; (7) women
24 million or 45 percent of the population; and (8) the indigenous
communities. At puwede nating dagdagan para isama natin ang ating sarili.
Other sectors could be added as may be provided by law.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, my question is that if I add up the figures
cited by Commissioner Tadeo, they total about 80 million. There are, in
effect,
people who belong to several sectors. First of all, these criteria could apply to
more sectors than those cited. Secondly, how do we determine who vote
within each sector? Suppose it is a woman who is 18 years old and who
belongs to the rural poor, does she vote as a woman, as a youth, or as a
rural poor,
or does she vote for all three? In effect, if she votes for all three, she has four
votes one for legislative district, one for the woman sector
representative, one for the peasant poor representative, one for the youth
representative. How do we solve this problem in operational terms?
MR. TADEO: Iyong sinasabi ni Commissioner Monsod ay lagpas sa bilang.
Hindi ko pa nga naisama rito iyong indigenous communities 9 to 12
million. Kapag
sinabi nating 45 percent ang women, kasama rito ang peasant women;
kapag sinabi naman nating youth, anak ito ng magsasaka; kapag sinabi
naman nating
indigenous, kasama rito ang tribal communities. Hindi nangangahulugang,
magiging double ang ating entry. Ang kabuuang bilang pa rin ng
mamamayan ay 55
million.
MR. MONSOD: Papaano po nating malalaman kung sino ang boboto para sa
representative ng womens sector, lahat ng babae, hindi po ba? Paano po
iyong rural
poor?
MR. TADEO: Ang mechanics po ay isinumite namin kay Commissioner
Villacorta. Nandoon na po kung ano ang mga dapat na gawin.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I just want to say that we suggested or
proposed the party list system because we wanted to open up the political
system to a
pluralistic society through a multiparty system. But we also wanted to avoid
the problems of mechanics and operation in the implementation of a concept
that has very serious shortcomings of classification and of double or triple
votes. We are for opening up the system, and we would like very much for
the
sectors to be there. That is why one of the ways to do that is to put a ceiling
on the number of representatives from any single party that can sit within
the 50 allocated under the party list system. This way, we will open it up and
enable sectoral groups, or maybe regional groups, to earn their seats among
the fifty. When we talk about limiting it, if there are two parties, then we are
opening it up to the extent of 30 seats. We are amenable to modifications
in the minimum percentage of votes. Our proposal is that anybody who has
two-and-a-half percent of the votes gets a seat. There are about 20 million
who
cast their votes in the last elections. Two-and-a-half percent would mean
500,000 votes. Anybody who has a constituency of 500,000 votes,
nationwide,
deserves a seat in the Assembly. If we bring that down to two percent, we
are talking about 400,000 votes. The average vote per family is three. So,
here
we are talking about 134,000 families. We believe that there are many
sectors who will be able to get seats in the Assembly because many of them
have
memberships of over 10,000. In effect, that is the operational implication of
our proposal. What we are trying to avoid is this selection of sectors, the
reserve seat system. We believe that it is our job to open up the system and
that we should not have within that system a reserve seat. We think that
people should organize, should work hard, and should earn their seats within
that system.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, may I reply to the statement of
Commissioner Monsod?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: First of all, I question the assumption that sectoral
candidates will have an equal chance of winning a party list election when
they
compete with the politicians who belong to the traditional political parties. I
question this assumption because, even if the sectoral groups were forced
to organize, their machineries would not be as well-oiled or as well-funded as
those of the traditional political parties. Chances are, in such a party
list election, that does not give priority to these sectors; the traditional
politicians will prevail over the sectoral candidates. Secondly, I still
cannot understand why Commissioner Monsod, while he agrees in principle
in giving a bigger voice to the marginalized sectors, would be against the
idea of
reserve seats. I think this manner of providing guaranteed seats to the basic
marginalized sectors would be our way of protecting the interests of those
groups which have much less in life. Thirdly, with respect to the
Commissioners question of what would be the mechanics for electing the
sectoral
representatives, we can reply that there are many ways. We can either leave
the question to the National Assembly to decide, or we can append these
mechanics to the Constitution as an ordinance. But I think if we are agreed in
principle that we should give significant representation to these sectors,
then we must help each other in coming up with these mechanics rather
than straight away shelving the whole idea just because we find it difficult to
define the procedures.
For one, I can think of the party list as an instrument for electing sectoral
representatives. I would be in favor of the party list system on condition
that this system be only for the sectoral candidates. If we allow the
politicians to run under this system, then we are giving much more to those
who
already have power and resources. We have, in a way, already allocated
seats to the powerful by having an Upper House. Then, again, would it not
likewise
be a form of allocating reserve seats to the politicians to say that 80 percent
of the Lower House will be composed of district representatives? By making
this stipulation, we are reserving seats for politicians.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the candidacy for the 198 seats is not
limited to political parties. My question is this: Are we going to classify for
example
Christian Democrats and Social Democrats as political parties? Can they run
under the party list concept or must they be under the district legislation
side of it only?
MR. VILLACORTA: In reply to that query, I think these parties that the
Commissioner mentioned can field candidates for the Senate as well as for
the House
of Representatives. Likewise, they can also field sectoral candidates for the
20 percent or 30 percent, whichever is adopted, of the seats that we are
allocating under the party list system.
MR. MONSOD: In other words, the Christian Democrats can field district
candidates and can also participate in the party list system?
MR. VILLACORTA: Why not? When they come to the party list system, they
will be fielding only sectoral candidates.
MR. MONSOD: May I be clarified on that? Can UNIDO participate in the party
list system?
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, why not? For as long as they field candidates who
come from the different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in this
Constitution.
MR. MONSOD: Suppose Senator Taada wants to run under BAYAN group and
says that he represents the farmers, would he qualify?
MR. VILLACORTA: No, Senator Taada would not qualify.
MR. MONSOD: But UNIDO can field candidates under the party list system
and say Juan de la Cruz is a farmer. Who would pass on whether he is a
farmer or
not?
MR. TADEO: Kay Commissioner Monsod, gusto ko lamang linawin ito. Political
parties, particularly minority political parties, are not prohibited to
participate in the party list election if they can prove that they are also
organized along sectoral lines.
MR. MONSOD: What the Commissioner is saying is that all political parties
can participate because it is precisely the contention of political parties that
they represent the broad base of citizens and that all sectors are represented
in them. Would the Commissioner agree?
MR. TADEO: Ang punto lamang namin, pag pinayagan mo ang UNIDO na
isang political party, it will dominate the party list at mawawalang saysay din
iyong
sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political parties ang party list system. Gusto ko
lamang bigyan ng diin ang reserve. Hindi ito reserve seat sa marginalized
sectors. Kung titingnan natin itong 198 seats, reserved din ito sa political
parties.
MR. MONSOD: Hindi po reserved iyon kasi anybody can run there. But my
question to Commissioner Villacorta and probably also to Commissioner
Tadeo is that
under this system, would UNIDO be banned from running under the party list
system?
MR. VILLACORTA: No, as I said, UNIDO may field sectoral candidates. On that
condition alone, UNIDO may be allowed to register for the party list system.
MR. MONSOD: May I inquire from Commissioner Tadeo if he shares that
answer?
MR. TADEO: The same.
MR. MONSOD: Not only that; talking about labor, for example I think
Commissioner Tadeo said there are 10 to 12 million laborers and I
understand that
organized labor is about 4.8 million or 4.5 million if the laborers get
together, they can have seats. With 4 million votes, they would have 10
seats
under the party list system.
MR. OPLE: So, the Commissioner would favor a party list system that is open
to all and would not agree to a party list system which seeks to
accommodate,
in particular, the so-called sectoral groups that are predominantly workers
and peasants?
MR. MONSOD: If one puts a ceiling on the number that each party can put
within the 50, and I am assuming that maybe there are just two major
parties or
three at the most, then it is already a form of opening it up for other groups
to come in. All we are asking is that they produce 400,000 votes nationwide.
The whole purpose of the system is precisely to give room for those who
have a national constituency who may never be able to win a seat on a
legislative
district basis. But they must have a constituency of at least 400,000 in order
to claim a voice in the National Assembly.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I want to thank Commissioner Monsod for his
answers. I think I would like to wait for the proposed amendments of
Commissioner
Villacorta before I ask more important questions on this point.
Thank you very much.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. TADEO: Madam President, may I ask for a suspension of the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 6:20 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 7:07p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
understanding
that we will devote time tomorrow for the remaining issues on the Article on
the Legislative and that we will work until we finish it.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR GASCON: I would like to support the proposal to defer but I do not know if
this will complicate matters. We could take another committee report
tomorrow
like the Articles on Accountability of Public Officers and on the Executive, and
if it is possible we can discuss the Article on the Legislative on Monday
instead of trying to finish it this weekend. This will give us more time to
discuss the mechanics. Without prejudice to the other committees, if we
could
do that it could be very helpful, particularly to myself, because I was asked
by the Commission to go to Makati for a postponed public hearing tomorrow.
I
would like to participate in this issue of sectoral representation but I will not
be here tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Chairman of the Steering Committee say?
MR. BENGZON: The Chairman of the Committee on Social Justice has
requested the Steering Committee to schedule the consideration of the
Article on Social
Justice on the first or second week of August. The Steering Committee would
have gladly accommodated that but now we are already late. Commissioner
Nieva
has spoken to Commissioner Nolledo of the Committee on Local
Governments and to Commissioner Monsod of the Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers
if they could postpone their reports so that we could take up the Article on
the Executive immediately after the Article on the Legislative, followed by
the Declaration of Principles, then the Committee Report on Social Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what is the Commissioners comment on the
request of Commissioner Gascon?
MR. BENGZON: Instead of considering the Article on Accountability of Public
Officers, we could start with the sponsorship of the Article on the Executive
because tomorrow Commissioner Sumulong is ready.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, we should start with the Article on the Executive, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all right.
MR. GASCON: So, we will discuss the Article on the Legislative on Monday
and finish it by then.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: The only problem is that we will be cutting again the
sponsorship of the Article on the Executive.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: The Committee on Accountability of Public Officers is prepared
to sponsor its report tomorrow. It is a shorter Article so maybe we can get it
out of our way so that we can resume the discussion on the Article on the
Legislative on Monday.
MR. BENGZON: Does the Commissioner think we can finish the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers on Second Reading tomorrow?
MR. MONSOD: Hopefully.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we will have the Committee Report on the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers and the continuation of the party list system
and
the Article on the Legislative on Monday.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at ninety-thirty in
the morning.
It was 7:13 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 40
Saturday, July 26, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:44 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Lorenzo M. Sumulong.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. SUMULONG: Heavenly Father, everytime we come here to perform the
task assigned to us of writing a new Constitution for our people, we begin
with a
prayer. We decided to do this because the task entrusted to us is a difficult
and most exacting task. The document we are framing is not intended to
meet
and provide solutions to passing problems and momentary difficulties. We
are here to frame a fundamental law that our people can use not just for a
year,
not just for a decade, not just for a generation, but for all times.
To produce such a charter for our people, Heavenly Father, we need Your
help. Pour unto us the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may have the
strength,
the perseverance, and the determination to wash away pride or prejudice
from our hearts and minds so that the light of truth and reason and
unalloyed love
of country, rather than the darkness of preconceived ideas and theories, will
be the controlling factors to guide us in the discharge of the grave
responsibility that has been placed on our shoulders.
Heavenly Father, we are mortals; we are human beings with feet of clay; we
have our own views and our own philosophies, depending on the heredity
and
environment which have influenced our lives. Thus, we oftentimes see the
same subject in different lights. It is unavoidable that there should be a clash
of ideas amongst us, and I, for one, welcome this clash of ideas if done
openly rather than clandestinely, for letting off steam is a good safety valve
to
prevent violent explosions.
Heavenly Father, we thank Thee for keeping us united despite diversification
in our views every now and then. Pray, O Lord, that whenever we agree to
disagree, we take it as a sign of the restoration of our freedom of expression
for as Voltaire said, I do not agree with a word of what you say, but I
will fight to the death your right to say it. So that when we agree to
disagree, we are not weakening our unity, but rather we are strengthening
the unity
in our diversity.
Heavenly Father, we beseech Your continued guidance and assistance.
Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present*
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Absent
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present*
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Absent
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present*
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Absent
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Absent
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present*
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present*
Maambong
Present
Monsod
Present
Villegas
Present
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Consideration of Committee Report No. 17 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of the
committee
report without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Committee Report No. 17, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE 1986 CONSTITUTION AN
ARTICLE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS.
(The following is the whole text of the resolution per C .R. No. 17.)
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 17
(As amended and consolidated by the Committee
on Accountability of Public Officers)
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE 1986 CONSTITUTION AN
ARTICLE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Commission in
session assembled, To incorporate in the 1986 Constitution an article:
Article _____
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees shall
be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost fidelity, integrity
and efficiency, act with justice and lead modest lives.
SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-President, Members of the Supreme
Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman
may be removed
from office on impeachment for and conviction of, culpable violation of the
constitution, treason, bribery, other high crimes, graft and corruption or
betrayal of public trust.
SECTION 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power
to initiate all cases of impeachment.
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any of its members
or by a citizen which shall be referred to the proper committee of the House
for investigation and report. A vote of the majority of all the members of the
House is necessary to initiate impeachment proceedings.
(3) However, when the complaint is signed and verified by a majority of the
members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of
Impeachment and
the trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
(4) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of one year.
(5) The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachment. When
sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When
the
President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
shall preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of
two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
(6) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than the
removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the Government of the Philippines, but the party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and
punishment according to law.
SECTION 4. The Sandiganbayan, created pursuant to the mandate of Section
5 of Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution, shall hereafter be known as the
Anti-Graft Court. It shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as
provided by law.
SECTION 5. The Tanodbayan, created pursuant to the mandate of Section 6
of Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution, shall continue to function and exercise
its powers as provided by law, except those conferred on the office of the
Ombudsman created under this Constitution.
SECTION 6. There is hereby created the independent office of the
Ombudsman, composed of the Ombudsman, one over-all Deputy, and one
Deputy each for Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao.
SECTION 7. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter,
without any confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within three months
after
they occur.
SECTION 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens
of the Philippines, at least forty years old, with a college degree, or a
member
of the Philippine Bar. The Ombudsman must have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.
During their tenure, they shall not engage in the practice of any profession.
SECTION 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven
years without reappointment.
SECTION 10. The Ombudsman shall have the rank of a Chairman of a
Constitutional Commission, and shall receive the same salary, which shall
not be decreased
during his term of office. A Deputy of the Ombudsman shall have the rank of
a Commissioner of a Constitutional Commission and his salary shall not be
decreased during his term of office.
SECTION 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as champions of the people,
shall act promptly on the complaints filed, in any form or manner, against
public
officials or employees of the government, including government-owned
corporations, agencies or instrumentalities, and shall notify the complainants
of the
action taken and the results thereof.
SECTION 12. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions and duties:
(1) To direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or
employee of the government, as well as of any government-owned
corporation or
institution, to perform and expedite any act or duty required of him by law,
or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance
of duties;
(2) To direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public
official or employee at fault, and to recommend his removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure or prosecution, and to see to the compliance of the
directive;
(3) To direct the officer concerned to furnish it with copies of documents
relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the
bitterness towards the government and the people in the government. The
peoples faith in our institutions now hangs by a slim thread and is being
stretched to the breaking point.
This in fine is the collective plaint of 27 resolutions submitted to this
Convention and referred to the Committee seeking the establishment of a
constitutional office with two definite objectives, namely: One, the promotion
of higher efficiency and justice in the administration of the laws; and,
two, the protection of the constitutional rights of the people by securing the
right of the citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances.
So, what happened to this beautiful proposal? What came out of it is
Presidential Decree No. 1630,creating the Office of the Tanodbayan. There
was,
therefore, a failure to implement this specific, explicit proposal to create a
body that would act as guardian and protector of the rights especially of
the underprivileged. Therefore, we have proposed as briefly as possible in
our resolution an office which will not require any formal condition for the
filing of a complaint. Under our proposal, a person can file a complaint even,
by telephone and without much ado, the office of the Ombudsman is under
obligation to see to it that the complaint is acted upon, not merely attended
to but acted upon. Even in the United States, in the Nassau County, the
Ombudsman merely picks up the telephone and calls up the errant
employee. If the employee admits that there was reason behind the
complaint, he is told to
do what the complainant wanted him to do without much ado. And then that
is followed up by the corresponding report to the department of the
government
which has supervision over the employee at fault, with the proper
recommendation.
Under this proposal, the main thrust is remedial action, not the usual one
where the poor complainant is told: Maghanda ka muna ng affidavit, but he
is
not even helped in that. So, the complainant, if he is illiterate or poor, is
turned off. He says: Ni wala akong kilalang abogado. Wala akong ibabayad
sa
abogado. This is the situation which the Committee is proposing to remedy.
One of the most common complaints which I have received myself is the
inaction
of many judges. They would come to me saying: Sir, kilala ba ninyo si
ganong judge? Eh, matagal na po iyong aming asunto, wala pa hanggang
ngayon. If I
know the judge, I could do it; if I do not know him, I could do it through
another judge who could do it. This role can be very well filled by the
Officers, ably
headed by Commissioner Monsod, is really an institution primarily for the
citizen as against the malpractices and corruption in the government. As an
official critic, the Ombudsman will study the law, the procedure and practice
in the government, and make appropriate recommendations for a more
systematic
operation of the governmental machinery, free from bureaucratic
inconveniences. As a mobilizer, the Ombudsman will see to it that there be a
steady flow of
services to the individual consumers of government. And as a watchdog, the
Ombudsman will look after the general, as well as specific, performance of all
government officials and employees so that the law may not be administered
with an evil eye or an uneven hand.
The graft and corruption at all levels of our government is to be deplored,
Madam President. Our public officers act as if they are the masters when
they
are really the servants of the people. The lagay system has been
condemnably institutionalized in all government offices, including the courts.
The day
will come, Madam President, when our people will accept corruption as a way
of life and will lose their will to fight this corruption, thus resulting in
the total decay of our national character and the imminent collapse of our
national conscience. The effects of this situation are terrible to contemplate
because there would emerge again a system of dictatorship to contain the
chaos, widespread dissatisfaction, indifference and anarchy that are the
effects
of insensitiveness of government to the rightful demands of the people. The
emergence of totalitarianism in China, in many countries in South America
and
other places in the world could easily be traced to unrestricted corrupt ways
of government officials.
And so, Madam President, let our Ombudsman, called the eyes and ears of
the people, the super lawyer-for-free of the oppressed and the downtrodden,
raise a
new hope in our people who must be given the reassurance that the
government really cares for them. Along with the creation of the office of
Ombudsman, I
feel grateful to our Committee for embodying substantially my resolution
providing that the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired
by
public officials or employees shall not prescribe. This is a provision designed
to enable the government to forfeit ill-gotten wealth of public officers,
regardless of the lapse of time.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, essentially, the difference lies in one being
a prosecutory arm and the other a champion of the citizen who is not bound
by
legal technicalities or legal forms, but I would like to ask Commissioner
Nolledo to explain this in detail.
MR. NOLLEDO: If we go over the provisions of P.D. No. 1607, which amended
P.D. No. 1487, creating the Office of the Tanodbayan, also called by Mr.
Marcos
as Ombudsman, there are two parts in the functions of the Tanodbayan: First,
to act as prosecutor of anti-graft cases, and to entertain complaints from the
public. The second part constitutes the basic function of the Ombudsman.
And if we turn to page 3 of the report of the Committee, Section 5 provides,
and I
quote:
The Tanodbayan, created pursuant to the mandate of Section 6 of Article XIII
of the 1973 Constitution, shall continue to function and exercise its powers
as provided by law, except those conferred on the office of the Ombudsman
created under this Constitution.
This means that we are removing the second part of the functions of the
Tanodbayan and vesting the same in the office of the Ombudsman; and,
therefore, the
Tanodbayan shall continue to discharge his functions under the first part
merely as prosecutor, like a fiscal, of anti-graft cases which are filed with the
Anti-Graft Court.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the Ombudsman cannot prosecute?
MR NOLLEDO: No, he cannot. He can refer the cases that should be
prosecuted to the appropriate official he may be the Tanodbayan or he
may be the
ordinary fiscal.
MR. RODRIGO: Has the Ombudsman any power to compel the prosecuting
arm to prosecute or can he only recommend?
MR. NOLLEDO: He can direct.
MR. RODRIGO: Can he command?
MR NOLLEDO: That is equivalent to commanding the fiscal if the fiscal
refuses to file the case. And then in that case, if the fiscal refuses, then there
are available remedies. He may appeal to the Ministry of Justice.
MR. MONSOD: May I just go back to another comment the Gentleman made
earlier on the lack of prosecutory functions of the Ombudsman. We discussed
this in
the Committee and I will admit that the distinction is not clear-cut. However,
one of the concepts of the Ombudsman is his ability to persuade reforms,
and
we felt that perhaps, giving him a prosecutory function might be a bit
contradictory with that function because it is better if he attains it through
goodwill. However, we also wanted to invest in the event that public officials
are not responsive by investing him with certain powers he can resort to in
order to see to it that the omission or the act is rectified. For example, he
may direct the proper officials to do so. Another power that he has which
depends a lot on his prestige is his ability to publicize a wrong or an injustice,
because then you have public opinion operating against the erring public
official.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the Ombudsman does not have a prosecutory function nor
punitive powers.
MR. COLAYCO: None.
MR. RODRIGO: All that he relies upon is his persuasive power.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes. Persuasive power plus the ability to require that the
proper legal steps be taken to compel the officer to comply.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, but what is meant by required is that the Ombudsman
cannot compel.
MR. COLAYCO: We must distinguish this.
MR. RODRIGO: Can the Ombudsman compel a fiscal so file . . .
MR. COLAYCO: Not to file but to investigate. That is a duty which is
compellable by mandamus, and the Ombudsman will be empowered to do
that.
MR. RODRIGO: To file a mandamus case?
MR. COLAYCO: Yes, to compel him to investigate.
MR. RODRIGO: But on his own power, the Ombudsman cannot compel; he
has to go to court. If the fiscal does not want it done, he has to go to court to
file.
MR. COLAYCO: But that can be easily inserted among the powers. That is our
idea. We would like to receive fresh ideas.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us go back to the division between the powers of the
Tanodbayan and the Ombudsman which says that:
The Tanodbayan . . . shall continue to function and exercise its powers as
provided by law, except those conferred on the office of the Ombudsman
created
under this Constitution.
The powers of the Ombudsman are enumerated in Section 12.
MR. COLAYCO: They are not exclusive.
MR. RODRIGO: So, these powers can also be exercised by the Tanodbayan?
MR. COLAYCO: No, I was saying that the powers enumerated here for the
Ombudsman are not exclusive.
MR. RODRIGO: Precisely, I am coming to that. The last of the enumerated
functions of the Ombudsman is: to exercise such powers or perform such
functions
or duties as may be provided by law. So, the legislature may vest him with
powers taken away from the Tanodbayan, may it not?
MR. COLAYCO: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: And it is possible that pretty soon the Tanodbayan will be a
useless appendage and will lose all his powers.
MR. COLAYCO: No. I am afraid the Gentleman has the wrong perception of
the system. We are leaving to the Tanodbayan the continuance of his
functions and
the exercise of the jurisdiction given to him pursuant to . . .
MR. RODRIGO: Law.
MR COLAYCO: No. Pursuant first to the Constitution and the law which
mandated the creation of the office.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, Section 5 reads: The Tanodbayan shall
continue to function and exercise its powers as provided by law.
No.
1630 did not follow the main thrust; instead it created the Tanodbayan.
MR. RODRIGO: Another question, Madam President. This office will be
composed of five members. Will they all come from Manila?
MR. MONSOD: No, please read further.
MR. RODRIGO: Does the office of the Ombudsman have to act as a body?
MR. COLAYCO: It can act both as a body and along, because the head of the
office is the Ombudsman himself.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us say that one Ombudsman comes from Mindanao. What
I know is that this Ombudsman should be appointed but will have his office in
Manila.
MR. COLAYCO: No, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Does the Ombudsman have to be in Mindanao?
MR. COLAYCO: Yes, that is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: How about somebody from Sulu or Zamboanga who wants to
complain?
MR. COLAYCO: Unless we make a start, when can we begin to comply and
fulfill the needs of our people? Unfortunately, we know that there are many
of us who
need this. Of course, we cannot say from the very start that there will be five
Deputy Ombudsmen for Mindanao alone.
MR. RODRIGO: No, I did not say that. It says here there will be five, one
Ombudsman and four members.
MR. COLAYCO: For a start.
MR RODRIGO: Yes. I just want to get right to the point. There are five
members, and we have 54 million Filipinos, who all want to complain. Will the
Ombudsmen be accessible to all, especially the poor people in the barrios
who are the ones supposed to be benefited by this provision? How can they
make
themselves available?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the intention of the provision is that there
will be an office of the Ombudsman, not that there will be only five people in
that office. I think we prefaced our presentation with the qualification that
there are no one-time solutions to all the problems. But we would like to
institute one office that could be an answer to some of the problems of our
countrymen. This is certainly not a solution to all the complaints of 55
million Filipinos. If we use that argument, then why institute offices that are
not located in each and every barrio? Why have courts only in certain
areas? Why not in each and every barangay?
I think our position is that, as Commissioner Colayco said, we want to give
the concept a chance because it could be a vehicle for our people to correct
injustices and misconduct and impropriety.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, my question is, will this Ombudsmen have
a representative in every municipality, like there is a court in every
municipality
and city in the Philippines, so that the office will be accessible to the people
who want to complain?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, it is possible in time as the concept is
developed, refined and accepted by the people, like in other countries where
they
have set up different types of Ombudsman there is an Ombudsman for the
military affairs; an Ombudsman for the youth and so on. But then this
becomes a
complicated and comprehensive view which can be handled subsequently by
Congress.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Regalado be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
I have a series of questions here, some for clarification, some for the
cogitative and reading pleasure of the members of the Committee over a
happy
weekend, without prejudice later to proposing amendments at the proper
stage.
First, this is with respect to Section 2, on the grounds for impeachment, and I
quote:
exercise its jurisdiction as provided by law, then it would appear that these
justices
can be removed only by impeachment because of the statutory provision
under P.D. No. 1606, and yet, they are not among those mentioned as the
impeachable
officials under the preceding Section 2. Does the Committee intend to
continue the state of things wherein these justices of a special court can be
removed
only by impeachment, whereas their counterparts in the Intermediate
Appellate Court can be removed not necessarily by impeachment? I ask the
Committee to
look into that.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to say something in connection with the
Commissioners last statement.
MR. REGALADO: My question is: Under Section 4, can the justices of the
Sandiganbayan be removed only by impeachment as is the present state of
the law?
MR. NOLLEDO: What law is that, before I answer the Commissioners
question?
MR. REGALADO: If I am not mistaken, it is P.D. No. 1606.
MR. NOLLEDO: In that case, assuming that we give that P.D. No. 1606 a
category of the law, if that law is repealed by the legislature, the basis will be
lost, meaning, the provision on whether or not they are removable by
impeachment will also be correspondingly repealed. So I do not see any
anachronism
involved in the situation because the provision authorizing impeachment is
not a constitutional provision, but a mere statutory provision. And when it is
a
statutory provision, it can be repealed.
MR. REGALADO: When I said the provision is an anachronism, I am referring
to the present state of the law. But if the Commissioner will agree that this
provision be eliminated, then the anachronism will not exist.
MR MONSOD: For the information of the Commissioner, we were addressing
ourselves here to the continuity of the institution, and we would welcome
any
suggestions or amendments at the proper time.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, that is why I said that this is without prejudice to an
amendment, so that the Committee can enjoy its weekend going over these
provisions. I think we should clarify Section 8 a little more, because it says:
The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines, at least forty years old, with a college degree, or a member of
the
Philippine Bar.
Unless otherwise recast, it would appear that the Ombudsman himself need
not be a member of the Philippine Bar, but with only a college degree.
MR. MONSOD: I believe there might have been a typographical error here
and, again, an amendment would be in order.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, thank you.
On Section 10, regarding the Ombudsman, there has been concern aired by
Commissioner Rodrigo about who will see to it that the Ombudsman will
perform his
duties because he is something like a guardian of the government. This
recalls the statement of Juvenal that while the Ombudsman is the guardian
of the
people, Quis custodiet ipsos custodies, who will guard the guardians? I
understand here that the Ombudsman who has the rank of a chairman of a
constitutional commission is also removable only by impeachment.
MR. ROMULO: That is the intention, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Only the Ombudsman?
MR. MONSOD: Only the Ombudsman.
MR. REGALADO: So not his deputies, because I am concerned with the
phrase have the rank of. We know, for instance, that the City Fiscal of
Manila has the
rank of a justice of the Intermediate Appellate Court, and yet he is not a part
of the judiciary. So I think we should clarify that also and read our
discussions into the Record for purposes of the Commission and the
Committee
MR. ROMULO: Yes. If I may just comment: the Ombudsman in this provision is
a rank in itself really. That is how we look at it. But for purposes of
government classification and salary, we thought we have to give him a
recognizable or an existing rank as a point of reference more than anything
else.
ko iyong suweldo ni Presidente Cory Aquino, ako ay nagtaka kung bakit yung
ibang mga officials na may mas mababang suweldo ay nakatira sa mga
mansyon,
mayroong Mercedes Benz at ang mga anak ay tig-iisa ng kotse. Ang punto ko
lang ay ganito: kung gaano ang kinikita ng isang official ay iyon lang ang
siyang
dapat makita sa pamamagitan ng simpleng pamumuhay.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: That changes the interpretation, because if a public official is
earning P8,000 a year but is moneyed on his own, must he live within that
P8,000 a year? That is precisely my question.
SR. TAN: I think there is a little difference. It is the recognizable excess after
he got into office. So if he was very rich before and he still is rich,
it is all right, just like President Cory Aquino. But if there is a recognizable
excess like the cronies, yung mga biglang-yaman, that is a different
story.
MR. BENGZON: That is precisely why I wanted that interpretation entered
into the Record so that we will not have any misunderstanding. The proper
word
would probably be exemplary instead of modest and we will make the
proper amendment at the proper time.
My question on page 3 regarding the Ombudsman being a member of the
Philippine Bar has been asked by Commissioner Regalado.
So I will proceed to page 4, line 18 which states: government-owned
corporations. So we are excluding complaints against officials of
government-controlled corporations like, for example, Manila Gas which is 60
percent government-owned and 40 percent privately owned.
MR. COLAYCO: We will welcome these amendments at the proper time.
MR BENGZON: But what is the intention? Does the Committee intend to
exclude complaints against officials of these companies?
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President. The intention is not to exclude them.
We thank the Commissioner for pointing that out.
MR. BENGZON: Apropos of the points raised by Commissioner Rodrigo, in all
of these enumerated functions of the Ombudsman, am I correct in saying
that the
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. I will also quote the report of the General Committee
on the impeachment of President Quirino, Volume IV, Congressional Records,
House
of Representatives, 1553:
High crimes refer to those offenses which, like treason and bribery, are
indictable offenses and are of such enormous gravity that they strike at the
very
life or orderly working of the government.
Would the Committee agree to this?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, of course, especially if the President is involved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Finally, I will again refer to the committee report on the
impeachment of President Quirino on the phrase culpable violation of the
Constitution, and I quote:
Culpable violation of the Constitution means willful and intentional violation
of the Constitution and not violation committed unintentionally or
involuntarily or in good faith or thru an honest mistake of judgment.
Would the Committee agree?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, we agree with that.
MR. MAAMBONG: And this is really the final quotation which I would like the
Committee to comment on. Chief Justice Fernando also said:
Culpable violation implies deliberate intent, perhaps even a certain degree of
perversity for it is not easy to imagine that individuals in the category of
these officials would go so far as to defy knowingly what the Constitution
commands.
Could this be an agreeable interpretation to the Committee?
MR ROMULO: Yes, subject to exception, such as the last administrator we
had.
MR. MAAMBONG: The Commissioner has been very kind.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, before the Acting
Floor Leader calls for the next interpellator, I would like to make a comment
on the statements of Commissioners Rodrigo and Maambong that the
function of
the Ombudsman is merely recommendatory and that the office may
constitute as a useless appendage in the government . . .
Suppose a common tao goes to a public office and he is not attended to, so
he complains to the chief of the division. The usual happening is that there is
indifference. He feels aggrieved, he goes home and he does not pursue his
case anymore. He does not know where to go. So he goes to the
Ombudsman, and the
Ombudsman assists him by being his lawyer for free. In this case, does the
Commissioner think we are not doing service to our people by giving him a
lawyer
for free to champion his cause in order that possible abuse on the part of
government officials may be minimized, if not eradicated?
I would like the body to know that it is not exactly true to state that the basic
function of the Ombudsman is recommendatory. If we look on page 4,
Section 12, one of the functions of the Ombudsman is:
To direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or
employee of the government, as well as of any government-owned
corporation or
institution, to perform and expedite any act or duty required of him by law,
or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance
of duties.
Many of the valid complaints of the common tao who go to public offices are
not publicized: no one assists them, so they just leave the government
offices
in utter exasperation. But when the public officers know that there is an
office of the Ombudsman that will champion his cause, government officials
will
also be careful in mistreating the common tao. They know that their actions
can be publicized. They know that the Ombudsman can recommend their
removal.
They know that the Ombudsman will direct them to perform their duties. And
when they do not perform their duties, they will be investigated. These are
factors that should be considered to deter public officials from discharging
their duties with inefficiency.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that the honorable Commissioner
Hilario G. Davide be recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: If that is so, since even culpable violation of the Constitution is
already included in the betrayal of public trust, why can we not just limit
the ground to mere betrayal of public trust?
MR DAVIDE: So the thrust of the report is really to relax impeachment as a
process. I notice, however, that the proposal now requires a majority vote of
all the members of the House to initiate impeachment, while the present
constitutional provision requires only a vote of one-fifth of the Members. The
provision of the 1935 Constitution is also one-fifth vote of the Members. Why
did we increase it to a majority vote of all the Members, if the idea is to
relax impeachment? Does not the Committee realize that we will now have a
House of Representatives with a membership of 250? A majority of the
membership
will be 126, yet one-fifth would only be 50. So if we are going to relax
impeachment, we should retain the one-fifth requirement to initiate
impeachment
and, perhaps, even reduce the requirement for conviction.
MR MONSOD: If we will recall, during the sponsorship, we precisely said that
this is a matter that we would like very much to be discussed on the floor,
because there is a very delicate balancing here of the right to demand
accountability with the right of the government to a certain amount of
stability and
freedom from harassment.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is correct.
MR MONSOD: And we would like very much to be advised by the body on
this. We were looking at the past where, in the 1973 Constitution, a vote of
20 percent
of the membership of the House and, in the 1935 Constitution, a vote of twothirds of the membership of the House were required to initiate
impeachment
proceedings.
MR DAVIDE: That is for conviction, but not for initiation. Initiation of
impeachment proceedings still requires a vote of one-fifth of the membership
of
the House under the 1935 Constitution.
MR. MONSOD: A two-thirds vote of the membership of the House is required
to initiate proceedings.
MR. DAVIDE: No, for initiation of impeachment proceedings, only one-fifth
vote of the membership of the House is required; for conviction, a two-thirds
vote of the membership is required.
Another point, Madam President. May the Committee, taking into account
evidence obtained in the course of the investigation of a charge for
impeachment,
add other grounds for impeachment?
MR. ROMULO: That is not prohibited per se in our proposal, and again we are
willing to consider that.
MR. DAVIDE: Another question. Suppose the committees report is a
rejection, under the proposal it is not very clear whether the overturning of
that report
can be done by the legislature. Does it mean that such a report shall have to
be archived if it is a rejection?
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, no Member of the Lower House can even
comment on the report?
MR. ROMULO: That is not contemplated here.
MR. DAVIDE: What could be the nature of the evidence which the Committee
would require? Would it be mere preponderance of evidence, just like in the
fiscals office? Thus, if it believes that there is reasonable ground to believe
that a probable cause exists, the committee must have to make a report for
the articles of impeachment?
MR. ROMULO: We did not go into that precisely because it would then partake
too much of a criminal proceeding. As I said, we believe this is a political
act more than anything else.
MR. DAVIDE: While it may not necessarily be a criminal proceeding, does not
the Committee believe that we have to give some guidelines to the
committee
because it can just kill any proposal for that matter?
MR. ROMULO: Yes. There are two ways of handling that, either we put it
specifically in this provision or we put it in the Journal for the guidance of the
House when it establishes its rules.
MR. DAVIDE: When an impeachment charge is, as recommended by the
Committee, signed by a majority of all the members of the House, should it
always be in
the nature of a complaint which must be verified, or is it enough that it is in
the nature of a resolution?
require under
our rules on evidence.
MR. ROMULO: No. That would not be permitted in a regular court of justice.
MR. DAVIDE: I notice in the report and from the answers during the period of
interpellations that the Ombudsman would have no right to conduct
investigations.
MR. NOLLEDO: No, that is not true.
MR. ROMULO: The Ombudsman has the right to conduct investigations.
MR. DAVIDE: So, it can conduct investigations.
MR. NOLLEDO: It can conduct investigations but it cannot prosecute before a
court of justice.
MR. COLAYCO: At the inception, no. I mean when a complaint is filed, from
the inception of the complaint he can already act because it is a question of
finding out from the person being complained about whether or not the
complaint is valid. It is a very simple procedure.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, to determine whether the complaint is valid or
not, necessarily he has to conduct an investigation.
MR. COLAYCO: Afterwards, yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Under Section 12 (2), we empower the Ombudsman to direct
the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or
employee
at fault, and to recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure
or prosecution, and to see to the compliance of the directive. My first
question is with regard to the recommendation for removal. Does it mean
that the offending public official or employee may be deprived of due
process
because there is already a recommendation for removal?
MR. COLAYCO: Of course not.
MR. DAVIDE: And since he is to see the compliance of the directive, which is
to recommend his removal, etc., what if the person to whom the directive is
addressed will not comply with it?
MR. COLAYCO: There are always administrative remedies against that.
MR. DAVIDE: Could the offending party be prosecuted then for disobedience?
MR COLAYCO: Yes, as the case may be and as the regulations of the civil
service so require.
MR. DAVIDE: So, in effect, we will have a superbody in this case which can be
even more powerful than any other administrative body.
MR. COLAYCO: More or less that is the intention.
MR. MONSOD: Except that we do not precisely give him the prosecutory
functions in order to have some balance here, and we do not precisely want
him to be a
supergovernment overseer.
MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the reason I am afraid it might be a superbody
because it does not have by itself the prosecutory power, so it will
necessarily
recommend to the fiscals office the prosecution of an individual. But we
know for a fact that the fiscals office cannot just immediately file the case.
It will have to conduct the preliminary investigation and decide for itself
whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that a case may be filed.
MR. COLAYCO: The Commissioner is correct.
MR DAVIDE: So if the fiscals office believes that there is really no basis to the
recommendation, yet it will be at the mercy of the Ombudsman because the
Ombudsman will now prosecute him for disobeying the recommendation of
the directive.
MR. COLAYCO: No; the Commissioner is wrong there. The Ombudsman can
only order the investigation, that is all.
MR. DAVIDE: I see.
MR. COLAYCO: He cannot overrule.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: There is the danger of duplication of functions because the
Ombudsman will investigate and the result may be forwarded to the fiscals
office.
The fiscals office will then review it before filing the case. So two bodies will
have to investigate before the same matter reaches the court.
MR. NOLLEDO: Why not? It will lessen the burden of the fiscal. We will notice
that under the law on criminal investigation, as now embodied in the 1985
Law
on Criminal Procedure, mere affidavits on the part of the respondents would
suffice for the fiscal to determine whether or not there is a prima facie case.
And it is only when the fiscal needs clarification that he may propound
questions to the parties before the case. If the Ombudsman had done his
duty, we
cannot deny that this will lessen to a considerable degree the burden of the
fiscal and, thus, expedite the appropriate action.
MR. DAVIDE: It will multiply the burden of the fiscal because two agencies will
have to conduct the investigation. In other words, it will result in
duplication of functions.
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so.
MR. DAVIDE: That is all, Madam President.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Villacorta
be recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Monsod?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we have one additional explanation. May
we just ask Commissioner Romulo address himself to a point raised by
Commissioner
Davide?
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner Romulo be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: We would just like to observe that actually there will not be a
total duplication of functions because the fiscal is not allowed to investigate
motu proprio, that is, by himself; whereas the Ombudsman, precisely, as I
said, is a busybody, so he can initiate investigations on his own. So, from
that
point of view, there is a division of functions.
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the Commissioner that there were a lot of
resolutions in the 1971 Constitutional Convention making betrayal of public
trust as
one of the grounds for impeachment, and the Commissioner knows already
what happened in the Convention. Marcos was very afraid of the term
betrayal of
public trust because at that time, he was already guilty of violating that
expression. And so, the Marcos boys did not like that to be placed in the
1971
Constitutional Convention. I think we will miss a golden opportunity if we fail
to adopt the words betrayal of public trust in the 1986 Constitution. But
I would like him to know that we are amenable to any possible amendment.
Besides, I think plain error of judgment, where circumstances may indicate
that
there is good faith, to my mind, will not constitute betrayal of public trust if
that statement will allay the fears of difficulty in interpreting the
term.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank Commissioner Villacorta.
Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Roberto Concepcion be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you, Madam President.
I am not so sure if I am clear about the distinction between the Tanodbayan
and the Ombudsman. The 1973 Constitution mentioned Tanodbayan. It
seems the
plan now is to create two separate offices, and I am trying to project in my
mind the role of one as distinguished from the other.
I had the perception that the Ombudsman, as the office is known in Sweden,
performs what Commissioner Romulo mentioned in a very flattering
language as a
busybody. My impression is that an Ombudsman is some sort of an
overseer, not in a sense that it exercises supervisory authority, but that it
has the
power and duty to take measures to assure himself that the offices of the
government assigned to him function as efficiently as possible. Of course,
there
is an Ombudsman for the executive department; there is one for the
legislative department; I think there is an Ombudsman for something like
human rights
and for military affairs. In the exercise of that function, it has the power and
the duty to find out what is going on in all these offices and, of course,
to recommend some modifications in the practices in these offices,
particularly those which do not entail graft and corruption but may lead later
on to
greater problems. So, at least, the report of the Ombudsman from Sweden
indicates that some employees are dismissed; some are merely warned; the
attention
of the head of the office is sometimes called to some practices or
deficiencies or irregularities in the operation of the office. Perhaps, it would
help
the Commission to envisage the role, because I notice that is the question
whether the function is purely recommendatory or they have the power to
prosecute. I think that in Sweden, generally, ordinary crimes are referred to
the ordinary prosecutory branches. Sometimes, only administrative action is
needed while a recommendation is made to that effect.
I am not aware whether or not any of these officials to whom the
Ombudsman has referred a number of cases have overruled the Ombudsman
in the sense that
the pronouncements of the Ombudsman carry great weight. The institution
has existed in Sweden for over one-and- a-half centuries, I think, since 1815.
It
is an institution originally established to play the role of the king in a way;
that is, to assure the king that the offices of the government are properly
run, to make suggestions or point out or call attention to certain practices
that are irregular or improper and the improvements that can be introduced
in
the operation of the offices and what administrative action should be taken
against some officials, including their dismissal.
And so, I hope the Committee will give us, at least, an explanation as to the
main difference between the one and the other. At least, under the proposed
draft of the Committee, there will be two separate offices. It would seem that
the Tanodbayan is higher than the Ombudsman, yet there is no constitutional
guarantee. I think the right of impeachment exists as to the Ombudsman,
not against the Tanodbayan. And so, in a way, that might be a misconception
among
the Members of the Commission.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President.
of his
time and interpellate and introduce his amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: I have no objection to that, as I said.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
My first question concerns the matter of the additional ground for
impeachment which is betrayal of trust. I presume that the Members are
aware of the UP
Law Center Constitutional Project which made mention of this additional
ground for impeachment, to wit:
Acts which are just short of being criminal but constitute gross faithlessness
against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of
duty, favoritism, and gross exercise of discretionary powers.
Does the Committee accept this definition?
MR. MONSOD: If the Commissioner will recall, that was covered already this
morning.
MR. GUINGONA: I know. But the reference was to the proceedings in the
Constitutional Convention; I am now referring to the UP Law Center
Constitutional
Project.
MR. ROMULO: We accept.
MR. GUINGONA: There are additional grounds for impeachment mentioned in
the 1970 Revision Project aside from those that I have just mentioned. They
added
profanity, obscenity, habitual drunkenness while performing official duty.
Would the sponsor agree?
MR. ROMULO: No, we do not agree to that.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you. In the 1986 UP proposal which the sponsor said
he is aware of, there is this statement referring to the addition of the words
betrayal of trust, which reads: such an overreaching standard may be too
broad and may be subject to abuse and arbitrary exercise by the legislature.
Would the sponsor agree to this?
MR. ROMULO: In view of the clarification already read into the Record, we
believe that that is sufficient to guide the future Congress.
MR. GUINGONA: Would it not be better to add the word GROSS to the words
betrayal of trust to make the statement less broad?
MR. ROMULO: If the Commissioner will submit that as an amendment, we will
consider it.
MR. GUINGONA: Actually, I presented a proposed resolution which contained
an additional ground for impeachment. I recalled that the Honorable Nolledo,
in
response to an interpellation, said that I gave as an example an instance
where the President orders the Minister of Justice to perform acts that would
violate human rights. My proposed additional ground for impeachment which
has been submitted to the Committee is: WHEN THERE IS A NATIONAL
FAILURE OF
JUSTICE EVIDENCED BY GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS. In other
words, I am not contemplating an instance where there is an act performed
by the President.
Here, I am contemplating an inaction on the part of the President which
would result in gross violation of human rights. Perhaps, this would sort of
supplement the concept which was proposed by Commissioner Ople
regarding command responsibility especially when the violation of human
rights is
perpetrated by the Armed Forces because the President is the Commanderin-Chief. Would the Committee be willing to consider an amendment by
adding this
ground which I have proposed?
MR. ROMULO: We believe that would be comprehended in the phrase
betrayal of trust.
MR. GUINGONA: I see. So it is understood that the betrayal of trust would
include inaction on the part of the President which will result in a failure of
justice as evidenced by gross violation of human rights.
MR. MONSOD While it is his duty to act, I believe that we can really make a
thorough enumeration of everything that we have in mind. But, perhaps, the
guideline that we already have in the Record would be sufficient.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes. I just wanted to read into the Record this particular
ground to make sure that the understanding of the Committee is that this is
included in the concept of betrayal of trust.
I have two more very short questions, Madam President. One is the matter
on the Ombudsman. We have adopted this, but this was derived from
Scandinavian
countries specifically Sweden. I think I mentioned here before that according
to Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Constitution should be
written in words that can be understood by the people. I do not think
Ombudsman can be understood by our people, and I thought, maybe
and again I have
no amendment to offer we should use either a Filipino word or an English
word. A Filipino word may be Bantay Bayan as suggested by our Acting
Floor
Leader and in English, it could be Vigilantes of the People, as suggested by
the late Dr. Salvador Araneta, a distinguished member of the Constitutional
Convention. Of course, I leave that to the wisdom of my other colleagues and
the members of the Committee to think of another name, but I strongly
suggest
that we do not use the word Ombudsman which is not in our own language.
We only have two official languages: English and Filipino.
And the last item, Madam President, if I may, concerns the matter suggested
by the Honorable Tadeo which is modest living. Since we are allowing, in this
report, that even citizens can file a complaint, we should give the citizens or
even the government a basis to determine whether or not a person is living
beyond his means. I do not know if there is a provision in other articles on
this matter. If there is none, maybe we should suggest that at least these
impeachable officers should present or file or submit their statement of
assets and liabilities upon assumption of office so that we would be guided.
Although my personal view is that even if a person has P50 million, it would
not justify him to use Rolls Royce, considering the economic conditions of our
people today.
I thank the sponsor; thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Treas be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Treas is recognized.
MR. TREAS: Madam President, may I just ask a few questions of the
Committee for clarification.
According to Section 3, subparagraph 2, after a complaint for impeachment
is filed, it is referred to the proper committee of the House for investigation
and report. My question now is: If after the investigation and report,
notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence in support of the complaint for
impeachment and taking into account political considerations, especially if it
another
Ombudsman, a toothless Ombudsman; it can be expensive but a useless
appendage.
Madam President, during the interpellations, it was admitted that the
Ombudsman which we plan to create may direct. Then, upon questioning on
what the
proposed Ombudsman can do in case its direction is not complied with, they
said nothing; it can just appeal to other offices. So, it is very clear that the
proposed Ombudsman may not prosecute, punish or compel. It has no
coercive power. As was stated by one of the members of the Committee, it
only plays a
persuasive function. What is the use of creating an office and spending
millions of pesos of the peoples money in which it will only have persuasive
functions? It is very clear that it has no power to compel. It can have no
coercive function. Why? Because this office is independent from the
President.
And the President is the Executive; he is the one who has control over the
civilian offices and the army that can compel compliance with directives.
What
is more, the way I see the concept of the Ombudsman, it will not perform the
services expected of that office. It will consist of one man, the Chairman,
and four members one for Mindanao, one for the Visayas, one for Luzon
and one nationwide. It does not say that it will have branches in every
province
and municipality, much less in every barrio. And yet, the purpose of this
proposed Ombudsman is so that the people, especially the poor and
underprivileged, will have a place to air their complaints against government
officials who fail to perform their function. But where will the people go?
There will be one Ombudsman member from Mindanao and maybe he will be
in Cagayan de Oro City or Davao City. How about the people in Jolo,
Zamboanga, and
the other barrios of Mindanao? There may be one Ombudsman in Cebu. How
about the people from the distant barrios of Cebu and Siquijor? And so, it will
just
be a useless appendage. On the other hand, if we try to make it accessible to
the people, then it will be a very expensive though useless appendage. We
will have to create a central office, branch offices in the regions, provincial
and municipal offices extending up to the barrios, if we really want this
to be effective and accessible to the people.
Madam President, we do not have that kind of money now. So, I suggest that
the proposal be left to the legislature for consideration at a later date when
we understand this better and when we can afford financially to put offices
all over the Philippines so that this Ombudsman office can perform its
functions as expected.
provision if we can agree among ourselves on how to go about it. First of all,
I would like to read the philosophy behind the creation of the Ombudsman. It
says here in the book that I am using . . .
MR. RODRIGO: Is that in 1971?
MR. MAAMBONG: This is actually the New Philippine Constitution by . . .
MR. RODRIGO: So, that was on the creation of the Ombudsman called the
Tanodbayan in the 1973 Constitution?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, it does relate to it. It says here:
The Ombudsman proceed from the proposition that the plain, ordinary citizen
is helpless before the monster that ate the bureaucracy. The people are
alienated by the cold, distant and impersonal treatment they received from
the government. The main thrust of the proposal is to impress upon
government
officials and employees that they are servants rather than masters of the
people, that the tong or lagay system is unnecessary because the
salaries
paid to them actually come from the pockets of the people through taxes.
Does the Commissioner agree with this philosophy of the creation of the
Ombudsman?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Now, I will go further, Madam President.
MR RODRIGO: If it is to be created, I think it should not be completely
independent of the President. As a matter of fact, I think it should be a body
that
is under the President, otherwise it will have no coercive function; it will have
no coercive power.
MR MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President, the Commissioner already said that.
The same book also mentions that in the Philippines the concept is not
entirely new although we do not call such body or agency an Ombudsman.
As early as
1949, this idea came out in the form of President Quirinos Integrity Board,
the Presidential Complaints and Action Committee (PCAC) of President
Magsaysay, the Presidential Committee on Administrative Performance
Efficiency (PCAPE) of President Garcia, the Presidential Anti-Graft Committee
(PAGCOM)
It does not mean that the Ombudsman will directly order the Register of
Deeds to register that document. The Ombudsman in its actual operation can
inquire
from the Register of Deeds about the reason. Maybe there is some defect in
the document. But if he finds out, for example, that the Register of Deeds is
simply delaying the registration because he is waiting for some
consideration, the Ombudsman then can advise the person concerned to
complain to the
Commissioner of Land Registration and even help that person in the
preparation of his complaint. That is how I understand the purpose of the
Ombudsman.
The argument of Commissioner Rodrigo that the office of the Ombudsman is
toothless, and then later on saying that it would be performing the functions
of
an executive is somewhat contradictory. It is not toothless because if, despite
the efforts of the Ombudsman, inspite of the gentle persuasion to these
public employees concerned they do not perform their tasks, the
Ombudsman has the right to publicize, when circumstances so warrant,
matters covered by his
investigation, and that is where his power lies. And that is where he can
serve the people very effectively. He can recommend the officer concerned
to take
appropriate action against a public official. So, it is really the Ombudsman
who will be able to help the small people, those who cannot afford lawyers,
by
serving as some sort of a supercounsel de officio for the poor complainants.
And so I think if we are really concerned for the protection of the ignorant
people who do not know what to do, there is a need for the creation of this
Ombudsman. And as stated by Commissioner Maambong, before this was
under the
Office of the President. And what happened? The President sometimes used
it for political purposes. But if we make him independent, he will
independently
perform his functions of serving the people.
So, with all due respect to the brilliant argument of Commissioner Rodrigo, I
am painfully constrained to object to the deletion of the provision on the
Ombudsman. I think this is a good provision, a very revolutionary provision,
which should stay in this new Constitution.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
officials. As I can see it, there will be some pompous bureau directors who
will say: Who is he to dictate upon me? I take orders from the President or
the minister. Who is that Ombudsman ordering my ministry? My ministry is
only answerable to the President and no less.
We now have a complicated situation. But suppose instead of abolishing the
Ombudsman, we make the Tanodbayan the prosecuting arm of the
Ombudsman so that
it has some kind of teeth even if it is an artificial denture? It will have power
to prosecute administrative cases as the Ombudsman under the 1973
Constitution who can prosecute civil or administrative cases.
MR. RODRIGO: That would be the result if my amendment is approved.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I agree with our beautiful Commissioner here, Commissioner
Aquino, that instead of abolishing an office that has potentials for serving our
people, let us reinforce it; make the Tanodbayan its prosecuting arm so that
it can, when necessary, prosecute grave misconduct committed by any
public
official who would refuse to obey its legitimate orders. Does the
Commissioner agree?
MR. RODRIGO: I agree.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The powers envisioned in the 1973 Constitution, its enabling
law, and the new proposed Constitution as I can glean from the present
Ombudsman provision are not really limited to legal matters. They speak of
efficiency Why should it be the exclusive territory of lawyers like the
Commissioner and me? There should be a management expert here or an
economist. When we say efficiency in the government, we do not leave this
exclusively
to lawyers like us. We must have a true Ombudsman who has to be equipped
with personnel who can assess the performance efficiency of agencies even
in the
case of graft and corruption. Those who have experience against graft and
corruption in the recent campaign will tell us that one of the best ways to
fight
graft and corruption is through an initial management survey because
without a management survey, we could not locate and detect the points
where graft and
corruption persistently occurs. In the management of an agency, there is
duplication of duties, there is passing of the buck so that the clientele or the
public could not get action enough, and there is opportunity to delay action.
Graft and corruption comes up especially in financial institutions.
Therefore, does the Commissioner agree with me that the overall totality of
this concept is that it should also have room for an economist, a
management
expert, and even a human rights expert?
MR RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to call attention to the fact that at this moment,
there are three Bulakenos on the floor.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Before Commissioner Rodrigo sits down, will he yield to a question
or two?
MR RODRIGO: Gladly.
MR. OPLE: The first part of my interpellation will be directed to the proponent
of the amendment and the second part, just another question or two, to the
distinguished sponsors.
Am I right in saying that according to Commissioner Rodrigos amendment,
the most important point is that an independent office of the Ombudsman
could
encroach upon the principal responsibility of the Chief Executive who
controls all the ministries under the Constitution?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: I share some of the Commissioners concern about that. Perhaps if
this office of Ombudsman fails, then it just lapses into oblivion since the
citizens will no longer come before it for help. If it succeeds, then it becomes
a competitor to the President of the Philippines who under the
Constitution is in command of the entire government and presumably
responsible for its success or failure in its totality.
If we try to correct this orientation of the office of the Ombudsman so that it
becomes a constitutional arm of the President of the Philippines, the
powers of the executive, in effect, being placed behind the high mission of
the office of the Ombudsman and the cooperation of the President insuring
that
the entire organization of government will support the work of the
Ombudsman as a matter of administrative and legal responsibilities, will the
distinguished Gentleman from Bulacan reconsider his amendment?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: The Commissioner will consider it.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
May I direct a question to the Committee? In the light of the previous
discussion and in the interest of a compromise that would save this
Commission from
the pain of having to vote, perhaps with a very close and divisive result, will
the Committee consider later an amendment to the amendment of
Commissioner
Rodrigo that would close this chasm, which I myself agree can be
embarrassing and dangerous for the President of the Philippines, by way of
designating the
office of the Ombudsman as a constitutional arm for good government,
efficiency of the public service and the integrity of the President of the
Philippines, instead of creating another agency in a kind of administrative
limbo which would be accountable to no one on the pretext that it is a
constitutional body?
MR MONSOD: The Committee discussed that during our committee
deliberations and when we prepared the report, it was the opinion of the
Committee and I
believe it still is that it may not contribute to the effectiveness of this
office of the Ombudsman precisely because many of the culprits in
inefficiency, injustice and impropriety are in the executive department.
Therefore, as we saw the wrong implementation of the Tanodbayan which
was under
the tremendous influence of the President, it was an ineffectual body and
was reduced to the function of a special fiscal.
The whole purpose of our proposal is precisely to separate those functions
and to produce a vehicle that will give true meaning to the concept of
Ombudsman. Therefore, we regret that we cannot accept the proposition.
MR. OPLE: Yes. Madam President, just one last manifestation on my part. I
think there is a tendency, partly healthy and partly unhealthy, for us to
create
constitutional umbrellas of immunity from executive intervention on the part
of bodies that are embedded within the executive branch of the government.
Penal Code; that is, crimes committed by public officers 1,198 cases
(27.62 percent); other crimes in relation to public office 1,127 (25.98
percent);
violation of corrupt law practices 1,049 (24.18 percent); other complaints
not involving crimes 439 (10.12 percent) and which they were not able to
attend to; request for assistance 249 cases (5.74 percent); administrative
complaints on acts in relation to the office of the public officer but which
do not amount to crimes and, therefore, are not supposed to be within their
prosecutory functions 60.62 percent.
In other words, Madam President, what actually spawned or caused the
failure of the justices of the Tanodbayan insofar as monitoring and fiscalizing
the
government offices are concerned was due to two reasons: first, almost all
their time was taken up by criminal cases; and second, since they were
under the
Office of the President, their funds came from that office. I have a sneaking
suspicion that they were prevented from making administrative monitoring
because of the sensitivity of the then head of that office, because if the
Tanodbayan would make the corresponding reports about failures,
malfunctions or
omissions of the different ministries, then that would reflect upon the
President who wanted to claim the alleged confidence of the people.
Not only in the Philippines but anywhere in the world, bureaucratic red tape
has always been the bane of democratic institutions, and this bureaucratic
red
tape, omissions or nonfeasance, malfeasance or misfeasance do not amount
to a crime.
The purpose of the Tanodbayan, on its secondary function, is to respond to
the complaints of the common citizen. It has been said here that Juan de la
Cruz, if he has not been given attention by the head of a bureau or office,
could always make the corresponding complaints to the head of that office. If
even a minor clerk will not listen to poor little Juan de la Cruz, does the
Commissioner expect him to go to the bureau director or to the minister?
What
will he do? It has been said here that he can go to the Ministry of Justice.
That bureaucratic practice does not amount to a crime so the Minister of
Justice will just tell him that it is outside of his jurisdiction.
Again, it has also been said here that the Tanodbayan would, in effect, be
competing with the President in the performance of executive powers
because he
would be in confrontation with the President. I think a sincere President who
is fully dedicated to public service would appreciate his attention being
more he will welcome the fact that here is an arm of his, independent from
him as known to the people, but in cooperation with him for the purpose of
good
government, where the little men in the street, a member of the Great
Unwashed, can always go to and lay his head on a shoulder and say, Mr.
Ombudsman,
ang pamilya ko po ay tatlong araw nang hindi kumakain. Hindi ko na
masabing no more rice tayo, magmemorize na lang kayo. That is actually
the purpose of
the office of the Ombudsman.
Of course, there is a question of whether it is, as it was in the past, only to be
constitutionally mandated or must be of constitutional creation. The
former Tanodbayan was only constitutionally mandated, hence it required an
enabling legislative act to exist and to operate. The purpose of this is to have
it constitutionalized to free it from any inroads of pressures with the
corresponding logistical support given to it.
Bureaucratic red tape has been with us for generations, as far as I can recall,
and I am old enough to have had that experience. Try following up your
papers in the government. Even judges and justices have to go through the
hegira of rounds of offices and bureaus just to collect their retirement pay,
and
these are people who stand tall in stature in society. If that could happen
even to those people of eminence, what chance has a member of the Great
Unwashed, like little Juan de la Cruz, who cannot even express himself
properly in either English or Tagalog? For that reason, Madam President, I
support
this committee report on a constitutionally created Ombudsman and I further
ask that to avoid having a toothless tiger, there should be further provisions
for statistical and logistical support.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Uka be the
last speaker to speak on the issues.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Commissioner Uka is recognized.
MR. UKA: Madam President, only for a few minutes. I would like to ask a few
clarificatory questions of the honorable members of the Committee.
By the way, my friends, from what language is this word Ombudsman?
Where does it come from? I do not quite understand it. Can we not translate
it into
Tagalog or Ilocano for that matter?
MR. TREAS: That is on page 6, Section 14, line 1. I propose to delete the
word public and lieu thereof insert the words MEMBER OF THE CABINET OR
ELECTED. Section 14 will now read: No loan, guaranty or other form of
financial accommodation for any business purpose may be granted by any
government-owned or controlled bank or financial institution to any MEMBER
OF THE CABINET OR ELECTED official, or to any firm or entity in which he has
substantial interest during his tenure.
The wording of this section is too embracing to any public official. We have
hundreds of public officials who will be deprived of financial assistance.
Usually, it is the higher appointive or elective officials in the government, like
the members of Cabinet who take advantage of this provision.
MR. COLAYCO: May I react to that, Madam President?
MR. FOZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: We will just sit with the Committee.
MR. COLAYCO: May I be recognized, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: The Commissioner mentioned elective officials.
Would this cover all elective officials down to the lowest officials?
MR. TREAS: They fall within that category, but the term elective is more
restrictive than public officials.
MR. COLAYCO: I know. But the barangay captain is an elective official, and I
hardly think that he has any clout or influence.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, in that connection, I have an amendment to the
amendment, if the proponent will accept.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I would like to propose an amendment to the
amendment in this wise: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS instead of ELECTED
official.
MR. TREAS: To limit the prohibition, I accept the amendment.
MR. MONSOD: The thinking of the Committee when this was considered was
that most of the ills associated with the use of government financial
institutions,
the massive ones, were really for business purposes.
MR. RODRIGO: Suppose he wants to build a mansion as has been done in
many cases.
MR. MONSOD: A residential purpose was not envisaged in this prohibition.
MR. RODRIGO: But why? What is the philosophy? Why can a Senator borrow
money from or be guaranteed by government financing institutions for
building a
mansion, for travel abroad, for gambling. but he is not allowed to borrow for
business?
MR. MONSOD: As we had mentioned we were addressing ourselves to the
bigger problem which was what is usually the case the vast resources of
the financial
institutions go to big accommodations for business purposes. So we did not
want to have an all-embracing net on this. But we would be happy to have
the
body vote on this.
The Committee is accepting the amendment of Commissioner Treas.
MR. RODRIGO: Will Commissioner Treas admit an amendment to the
amendment by deleting the word business? Will the Committee accede to
that amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, that would cover any purpose even building
a house?
MR. RODRIGO: Any purpose, yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I make a comment on that?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, there are many public officials who are
members of the GSIS. Under the GSIS Law, they are entitled to personal
loans. With
the amendment, we will also prohibit the grant of loans to GSIS members.
That is why we put the word business. When we talk of business, usually
people
borrow in terms of millions.
I have not heard of any public official who borrowed money for the purpose
of going abroad or for building mansions. It is all right. But an official
cannot borrow for the entire amount for that mansion because there are
limitations imposed by the GSIS Law and the banking institutions of the
government.
Perhaps, he can invest his own equity.
So, I think deleting the phrase business purpose may be most unfair to
many public officials.
MR. RODRIGO: I would have favored the original proposition of deleting this
whole section. I do not see the logic in limiting the prohibition to loans or
guarantees to be used for business. As a matter of fact, I would prefer that
we accommodate somebody who may use it for business rather than
somebody who
will just spend the money for travel.
The Commissioner mentioned the GSIS. I will mention the Development Bank
of the Philippines. Let us say that some councilors in a certain town want to
put
up a piggery project and they want to borrow money from the DBP for this
purpose.
MR. MONSOD: Under the amendment, they would not be covered anymore.
MR. NOLLEDO: They will not be barred.
MR. RODRIGO: They will not be covered. Let us say that a Congressman
wants to borrow from DBP to use for prawn business which is now a very
good business.
Can he not borrow?
MR. MONSOD: I think we answered that earlier. We are trying to avoid the
use of political power. If it is a truly meritorious project, it can be financed
by the private sector.
MR. RODRIGO: But why should the government sector discriminate against
the borrower who will use it for business vis-a-vis a borrower who will just
waste
the money?
MR. MONSOD: Where did the Commissioner get the example of the borrower
who will waste the money? I do not remember it in our discussion.
MR. RODRIGO: I was not in discussion with the Gentleman.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think we can understand this better if we consider the public
officials who are inhibited from getting these loans. They are the members of
the Cabinet and Members of the Congress who can easily impose influence
upon the proper officials in charge of granting these loans.
MR. RODRIGO: All right. But they are inhibited only if they borrow for
business, not if they are going to borrow for something else.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, because statistically the problem arose out of business
loans that involve large amounts.
MR. RODRIGO: But is it possible that Congressmen, Senators and Cabinet
members might borrow substantial amounts also for purposes other than
business?
MR. MONSOD: Statistically those happened but apparently those are mere
exceptions. It is really the business loans that are quite large.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the distinction should be on the amount of the loan, not
on whether it is going to be for business or for something else.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, the problem is that this is a Constitution that will last for
100 years. What may be a good limitation now of P1 million or P10 million
may be nothing 50 years from now or whatever.
MR. RODRIGO: I was not proposing that. I was just saying that it would be a
more logical consequence of what the Commissioner said that the
Committee
limited the prohibition to business because it is for business that substantial
amounts are borrowed.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Anyway, if we are going to be consistent, then I will defer my
proposed amendment.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in support of the Committee, do I have the
recognition?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. OPLE: In the sense of proportion, I think the Committee is right that it is
behind the prohibition on business loans. When we take account of the most
recent disclosures , the PNB had P67 billion of non-performing assets and the
Development Bank of the Philippines, P97 billion of non-performing assets. I
think a close look at many of these loans will show the intervention of
the Committee on the Executive will change the disabilities in the case of the
President.
MR. DAVIDE: Since it affects my amendment, I will only cite the first portion
of this section:
No loan, guaranty or other form of financial accommodation for any business
purpose . . . or to any firm or entity in which he has substantial interest,
during his tenure . . .
The President or the Vice-President may have substantial interest in any firm
or entity but he may not be engaged in the management of any business.
So, it
is still necessary that he should be included.
THE PRESIDENT: So, how is it now?
MR MONSOD: The Committee has accepted the proposed amendment, as
amended So, line 1 will read: bank or financial institution to THE PRESIDENT,
VICE-PRESIDENT OR ANY MEMBER OF THE CABINET OR CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote on that first.
Is there any objection to this particular proposed amendment which has been
accepted by the Committee?
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
I understand that the purpose here is to avoid the exercise of political power
in getting loans from any bank or banking institution of the government. Is
that correct?
MR. MONSOD: For business purposes, yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: If the President or a Member of the Congress exercises
political power so that his crony, not a Member of the Congress, can borrow
from a
government banking institution, is that covered by the prohibition?
MR. MONSOD: No. Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then he can still exercise political power and use his crony
to get loans from any government institution?
MR. MONSOD: Under this Article, the Gentleman would be correct.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then where is the strength of this provision, if the purpose
is to prevent the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Congress
and the members of the Cabinet from exercising political power?
MR. MONSOD: This provision was only meant to address the direct
relationship but if the Gentleman has any amendment, we would be happy to
consider it after
the voting on this present one.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, it is still open to further amendments after that?
MR MONSOD: We would be open to any suggestions the Gentleman may
have in that regard.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, please
raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
MR. RODRIGO: I want to record my abstention.
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 22 votes in favor, none against and one
abstention; the amendment is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, we have just run out of Assistant Floor
Leaders, so with the consent of the Chair and the body, I am appropriating
the
position in the meantime.
May I ask for the recognition of Commissioner Guingona for his amendment?
THE PRFSIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, we already broached this matter this morning and I
think we have had a pretty long discussion.
MR. MONSOD: If it is found that TANGGOL BAYAN is the best substitute, we
will give appropriate credit to the Gentleman.
MR. GUINGONA: No, it is not the credit. It is just that I want to make sure that
we do not use a foreign word. That is my only concern. What I am afraid of
is, since we are rushing the approval of this particular committee report, we
may end up without being able to take up this matter.
This was proposed earlier and has been discussed quite extensively and I
have asked if there is anybody else who would like to suggest, I would
welcome any
suggested amendment.
MR. MONSOD: May we defer it?
MR. GUINGONA: For when? On Monday we are supposed to take up the
Article on the Legislative.
MR. MONSOD: We have up to August 15.
MR. GUINGONA: The Gentleman means the period of amendments will not be
closed. The problem is that after the other amendments are presented, the
period of
amendments will be closed.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, this is not the first time we have made a
reservation on a question of style.
MR. GUINGONA: All right, with that reservation, I submit, Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I understand that there is a term in Maguindanao which
captures the concept of Ombudsman, but I will have to ask Datu Michael
Mastura about
that tomorrow.
MR. MONSOD: We would welcome suggestions.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: So, on the matter of the name to be given to this particular
office, this is being deferred to some later time, as suggested by the
Committee Chairman.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized for
her amendments?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, this is actually not an amendment but a
clarification, which I would like entered into the Journal. This has reference to
the
Ombudsman and his deputies being considered as champions. I felt
concerned that it might preempt people power. We are trying to make people
become
concerned and interested, and yet we talk of the champion of the people.
This could discount the contribution of the people who have organized
themselves
to correct injustice and to contribute to good government.
MR. MONSOD: We do accept that the Ombudsman cannot possibly preempt
or substitute for a lot of things in our country and in the Constitution, among
them
and more importantly, peoples power. It is just one of the safeguards.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized for his amendments?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I have several amendments. On Section 1, on
line 7, after the word employees, insert a comma (,) and the following:
INCLUDING THOSE IN GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES, then
put another comma (,).
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted by the Committee?
MR. ROMULO: We have no real objection except that it makes the paragraph
so long. It loses some of its impact. The definition of a public officer, I think,
already includes those who are employed in government corporations.
MR. DAVIDE: If we can agree because in all the other provisions that we have
approved so far, we always included in the concept of public officers and
employees the phrase including those in government-owned and controlled
corporations with original charters and their subsidiaries. If we can only
agree
that for purposes of accountability of public officers, the term public officers
and employees is deemed to include and should include those in
government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters and
their subsidiaries, I will not insist.
MR. ROMULO: We query only the subsidiaries because subsidiaries of
government corporations with original charters are not covered by the Civil
Service.
Does the Gentleman remember the example of such corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: So, only those with original charters.
MR. ROMULO: We agree.
MR. DAVIDE: It should be very clear now in the Record, for purposes of
interpretation, that public officers and employees include those in
government-owned
and controlled corporations with original charters.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee accepts that interpretation.
MR. DAVIDE: So. I will not insist then to avoid repetition of the same words.
However, I move for an amendment on line 7. Instead of the word shall,
insert MUST AT ALL TIMES.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment?
MR. MONSOD: We accept the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 9, Madam President, between the words integrity and
efficiency, insert a comma (,) and the word HONESTY.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: Does integrity not include honesty?
MR. DAVIDE: Not necessarily. Honesty should also include ones conduct even
outside the office. So, he should really be an example. Integrity may only be
related to his office.
MR. ROMULO: I think we meant integrity to include ones conduct in and
out of the office.
MR. DAVIDE: Then I will not insist.
On line 10, instead of modest, substitute it with EXEMPLARY.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted?
MR. ROMULO: It does not convey the intention of the original proponent, if we
make it EXEMPLARY.
MR. DAVIDE: Then I would modify. Between modest and lives, insert AND
EXEMPLARY.
MR. ROMULO: Will the Gentleman please explain EXEMPLARY as far as he is
concerned?
MR. DAVIDE: He should really be a paragon of virtue as a public official or
employee. The mere fact that he is leading a modest life does not
necessarily
mean that he is a paragon of virtue, that he is an example in the community.
Modesty in living does not necessarily mean a life worthy of emulation by the
other members of the community.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: I would humbly object because we will be a cause of more
frustration to the people if we put so many words which we cannot reach.
MR. DAVIDE. I will not insist.
On lines 13 and 14, I move for the deletion of the words and the
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman should not be placed on the level of the
President and the
Vice-President, the members of the judiciary and the members of the
Constitutional Commissions in the matter of removal from office.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
removed from
office only on impeachment. Is that right?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote on the amendment, may I ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: The Ombudsman, is this only one man?
MR. DAVIDE: Only one man.
MR. RODRIGO: Not including his deputies.
MR. MONSOD: No.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We will now vote on the amendment.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Davide, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 10 votes in favor and 14 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I have a proposed amendment by
substitution to paragraphs (2) to (4) of Section 3, beginning on lines 1 to 14
of page 2. I
wonder if the Committee had decided on the substitute amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: This is such an important and quite a lengthy amendment,
and we were wondering if we can take this up later after the Members of the
Commission
have been given copies of the proposed amendment because the
amendment would involve the procedures for impeachment, and perhaps the
Members of the
Commission should have a chance to read them.
If we remove the words of honor, trust or profit, they will embrace all kinds
of office. Once a person is impeached, he cannot hold any other office,
whether it is an office of honor, trust or profit in the government. Even as
consultant at one peso a year, he cannot.
MR. DAVIDE: That is to be left entirely to interpretation that the word office
would now relate to any kind of office, whether one of honor or of trust
or of profit.
I will not insist on my objection provided that that should really be the
interpretation.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The body has not yet acted on the proposed amendment of
Commissioner de los Reyes. So, will the Commissioner restate his
amendments?
MR. DE LOS REYES: On line 25, delete the words and enjoy and on line 26,
delete the words of honor, trust or profit.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the amendment been accepted by the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Yes. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. DE LOS REYES: On lines 9 and 10 of page 4, it is stated: .
A Deputy of the Ombudsman shall have the rank of a Commissioner of a
Constitutional Commission and his salary, which shall not be decreased
during his term
of office.
The sentence does not sound right.
Will the Committee agree that we adopt the same arrangement in the first
sentence, so that the Deputy of the Ombudsman shall have the same rank of
a
Commissioner and shall receive the same salary, which shall not be
decreased during his term of office?
THE PRESIDENT: So, what is the proposed amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The proposed amendment is to delete the phrase and
his salary on line 11 and instead, substitute it with the phrase: AND SHALL
RECEIVE
THE SAME SALARY.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted?
MR. MONSOD: The amendment is accepted, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I am sorry if I am taking a dual role here
but I have an anterior amendment to the same Section 10.
On page 4, Section 10, I propose to simplify the whole paragraph by deleting
the second sentence from lines 9 to 13. The first sentence of Section 10,
starting on line 6, should read: The Ombudsman AND HIS DEPUTIES shall
have the rank of a Chairman AND MEMBERS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSION, and THEY
shall receive the salary, which shall not be decreased during THEIR term of
office.
In that manner, we save one sentence because it would be too long to have
two sentences in one section.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Would Commissioner Maambong be agreeable to the
insertion of the word RESPECTIVELY?
MR. MAAMBONG: In what portion of the amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSION, RESPECTIVELY.
MR. MAAMBONG The amendment is accepted.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The amendment is also accepted. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: It is accepted by the Committee?
MR MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment on
Section 10? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR MAAMBONG: May I read the sentence for the record so that we will not be
confused. Section 10 reads: The Ombudsman and his deputies shall have
the rank
of a Chairman and members of a Constitutional Commission, respectively,
and they shall receive the same salary, which shall not be decreased during
their
term of office. The next sentence is deleted.
MR. DE LOS REYES: My next amendment will be the same as that of
Commissioner Davide on the manner the impeachment shall be enunciated.
Therefore, I will
just submit my written amendment so that it can be taken up later on.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Blas F. Ople be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. Will the Committee entertain a proposal
which shall consist of an additional section at the end of the draft article to
read as follows: NO PUBLIC OFFICER MAY DURING HIS TENURE SEEK TO
CHANGE HIS CITIZENSHIP OR ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF AN IMMIGRANT IN
ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT
FORFEITING HIS POST.
May I explain briefly the principle behind the proposed amendment, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
When we speak of accountability of public officers, we can presume that this
derives from the allegiance to the state and to its Constitution. That
allegiance must always be clear and I think most of the Members of this
Commission may have heard by now of reports more rampant than before
about members
of our public service, including those in the diplomatic and consular services
abroad, seeking to apply for a change of citizenship in their countries,
temporary domicile or acquiring what is known as a green card. Of course,
there is now in the Omnibus Election Code a prohibition against running for
office. I think these acts imputed to a good number of Filipino members of
our public service or public officers have now reached the sort of critical
mass
to cause genuine concern to our government. Therefore, this is by way of
establishing a constitutional directive so that by itself it can become a major
deterrent to these violations of public policy. The Committee had, of course,
ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT FORFEITING HIS POST. So, there are two
categories of actions contemplated here, both of which may result in the
forfeiture of post.
The first is when a public officer, during his tenure, applies for a change of
citizenship. The application alone will have the effect of exposing him to
forfeiture. But in the case of the immigrant. I suppose this assumes a
completed status of an immigrant. In either case, this is considered
inconsistent
with the accountability of public officers and, therefore, I would like to seek
the Committees support for this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, there are so many empty seats; I am just
wondering if we have a quorum.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we may not have quorum anymore, I was
wondering if we should take a vote, and if we can adjourn and take this up on
Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I would like to make it of record that we have to adjourn
because of lack of quorum.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Excuse me, Madam President, we have 24
Commissioners now.
MR. DE CASTRO: That still will not form a quorum.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Including the President, we have 25
Commissioners.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we have a quorum. But there is a motion to adjourn.
MR. DE CRSTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: I do not like to accuse my co-Members of the Commission,
but sometimes they leave this hall without the permission of the President or
anybody else. To me it is a very ungentlemanly act of any Member of this
Commission, so much so that we cannot do business if the quorum is being
questioned. I will suggest that strict measures be taken against anybody who
leaves this hall without the permission of the President.
Thank you, Madam President.
would
like from the Committee, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: We would like to request that we adjourn until Monday.
MR MAAMBONG: Before that, Madam President, in view of that manifestation,
I move to suspend consideration of the Article on Accountability of Public
Officers until such other date as may be scheduled by the Steering
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: May we continue within the first hour of our session on
Monday so that we can finish this particular Article?
MR MONSOD: We are prepared to continue, Madam President, except that we
may have to consult the Chairman of the Steering Committee. I believe there
was a
schedule but we are at the disposal of the Commission.
MR OPLE: Madam President, as the proponent of the amendment that is
being overtaken, I look forward to the resumption of this amendment process
by the
first hour on Monday morning in accordance with the agreement with the
Committee and the Acting Floor Leader.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I understand that yesterday the Chairman of the Steering
Committee had scheduled the continuation of the report of the Committee
on the
Legislative on Monday. We would like to find out what time the report of the
Committee on the Legislative will be taken up on Monday, morning or
afternoon,
to accommodate the report of the Committee on Accountability?
THE PRESIDENT: Chairman Monsod, how many hours do you think it will take,
at least based on the number of amendments that had been submitted?
MR MONSOD: Madam President, we believe we can finish this in the morning
session; that is our expectation.
SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF C.R. NO. 17
(Article on Accountability of Public Officers)