Congressional Record

R
R EP ESE
F

NT
H O USE O

ATIVES
1907
PLENARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE 17th CONGRESS, FIRST REGULAR SESSION
PH
ILIPPINES
House of Representatives
Vol. 4 Wednesday, February 15, 2017 No. 71

CALL TO ORDER REP. CRISOLOGO. The approval of the Journal

At 4:00 p.m., Deputy Speaker Pia S. Cayetano
called the session to order.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano).
Everyone is requested to rise for the singing of the
Philippine National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the Philippine National
Anthem.
PRAYER
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano).
Please remain standing for a minute of silent prayer
and meditation.
Everybody remained standing for the silent
prayer.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. CRISOLOGO. Mme. Speaker, I move that
we defer the calling of the roll.
I so move, Mme. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). There
being no objection, the calling of the roll is hereby
deferred.
REP. CRISOLOGO. Mme. Speaker, I move that
we defer the approval of the Journal of the previous
session.
I so move, Mme. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). I am
sorry, I did not hear you. Is that a deferral?
of the previous session
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). To
approve?
REP. CRISOLOGO. I move for the deferral of the
approval of the Journal of the previous session.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
The approval of the Journal of the previous session
is hereby deferred.
REP. CRISOLOGO. Mme. Speaker, I move that we
now proceed with the Reference of Business.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary General read the following House
Bills and Resolutions on First Reading, and the Deputy
Speaker made the corresponding references:
BILLS ON FIRST READING
House Bill No. 4991, entitled:
AN ACT AMENDING ACT NUMBER 3815
ENTITLED, THE REVISED PENAL CODE,
BY CLASSIFYING ACTS COMMITTED
AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN AND
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AS AN
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
By Representative Velasco-Catera
TO THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF LAWS
House Bill No. 4992, entitled:
AN ACT PROMOTING THE CREATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF A SUSTAINABLE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
2 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
By Representative Velasco-Catera
TO THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
House Bill No. 4993, entitled:
AN ACT PUNISHING POLICE OFFICERS
WHO COMMIT ROBBERY IN RELATION
TO POLICE OPERATIONS
By Representative Roque (H.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER
AND SAFETY
House Bill No. 4994, entitled:
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE CREMATION
OF BODIES OF CRIMES UNDER
INVESTIGATION
By Representative Roque (H.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER
AND SAFETY
House Bill No. 4995, entitled:
AN ACT CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES AND SERVICES AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
By Representative Suansing (E.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REORGANIZATIONAND THE COMMITTEE
ON PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
House Bill No. 4996, entitled:
A N A C T F U RT H E R A M E N D I N G
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 146 OR THE
PUBLIC SERVICE ACT, AS AMENDED
By Representative Del Rosario
TO THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC
AFFAIRS
House Bill No. 4997, entitled:
AN ACT PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO
FRESH GRADUATES BY WAIVING
GOVERNMENT FEES AND CHARGES
COLLECTED IN CONNECTION WITH
DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS FOR
EMPLOYMENT
By Representative Aglipay-Villar
TO THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT
House Bill No. 4998, entitled:
AN ACT PROVIDING PALLIATIVE AND END
OF LIFE CARE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
By Representative Aglipay-Villar
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
House Bill No. 4999, entitled:
AN ACT REQUIRING GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES TO INDICATE THE BLOOD
TYPE OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE
IDENTIFICATION CARDS CERTIFICATES
AND LICENSES
By Representative Aglipay-Villar
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
House Bill No. 5004, entitled:
AN ACT INCREASING THE AGE FOR
DETERMINING STATUTORY RAPE AND
OTHER ACTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE AND
EXPLOITATION TO PROVIDE STRONGER
PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN AND
AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ACT NO.
3815, AS AMENDED, ALSO KNOWN AS THE
REVISED PENAL CODE AND REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 7610, ALSO KNOWN AS THE
SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND
DISCRIMINATORY ACT
By Representative Roa-Puno
TO THE COMMITTEE ON WELFARE OF
CHILDREN
House Bill No. 5005, entitled:
AN ACT TO INCLUDE IN THE CURRICULA
OF ALL LEVELS OF BASIC EDUCATION
IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS AT
LEAST TWO (2) HOURS OF PHYSICAL
EDUCATION A WEEK
By Representative Roa-Puno
TO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION
AND CULTURE
House Bill No. 5006, entitled:
AN ACT CREATING A CENTER FOR THE
CONSERVATION OF THE SINARAPAN FISH
SPECIES AND PROVIDING MEASURES
FOR THEIR PROTECTION
By Representatives Salon and Lee
TO THE COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE
AND FISHERIES RESOURCES
House Bill No. 5007, entitled:
AN ACT CONVERTING THE MISAMIS
OCCIDENTAL PROVINCIAL HOSPITAL
(MOPH) IN THE PROVINCE OF MISAMIS
O C C I D E N TA L I N T O A M E D I C A L
TRAINING CENTER TO BE KNOWN AS
THE MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL MEDICAL
TRAINING CENTER (MOMTC)
By Representative Almonte
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
House Bill No. 5008, entitled:
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 3
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TECHNICAL
EDUCATION AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (TESDA) TRAINING AND
ACCREDITATION CENTER IN OROQUIETA
CITY, TO BE KNOWN AS THE OROQUIETA
CITY TESDA TRAINING CENTER, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
By Representative Almonte
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER AND
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
House Bill No. 5009, entitled:
AN ACT ADDRESSING THE CLASSROOM
SHORTAGE BY RATIONALIZING THE
ALLOCATION OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION BUDGET FOR CAPITAL
OUTLAY, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7880, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE
ACCESS TO EDUCATION ACT
By Representative Rocamora
TO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION
AND CULTURE
House Bill No. 5010, entitled:
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN EXPANDED
VOUCHER SYSTEM IN THE ELEMENTARY,
SECONDARY, AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
EDUCATION SYSTEM, AMENDING FOR
THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6728,
AS AMENDED
By Representative Rocamora
TO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION
AND CULTURE
House Bill No. 5011, entitled:
A N A C T C O N V E RT I N G T H E R O A D
S T R E T C H I N G F R O M B A R A N G AY
LONGOS IN THE CITY OF MALOLOS
TO BARANGAY LONGOS IN THE
MUNICIPALITY OF CALUMPIT AND
BARANGAYS IBA-IBAYO AND IBA IN
THE MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY IN
THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN INTO A
NATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR
By Representative Sy-Alvarado
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS
House Bill No. 5012, entitled:
A N A C T C O N V E RT I N G T H E R O A D
STRETCHING FROM THE BARANGAY
STA. CRUZ IN THE MUNICIPALITY
OF GUIGUINTO TO THE BARANGAYS
OF TIKAY, SAN PABLO, STA. ISABEL,
MABOLO, CANIOGAN, SAN VICENTE
AND STO. NIO IN THE CITY OF MALOLOS
IN THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN INTO A
NATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR
By Representative Sy-Alvarado
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS
House Bill No. 5013, entitled:
A N A C T C O N V E RT I N G T H E R O A D
STRETCHING FROM THE BARANGAYS
OF SAN SEBASTIAN, SAN NICOLAS,
STO. ROSARIO, MERCADO, AND SAN JOSE
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY IN
THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN INTO A
NATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR
By Representative Sy-Alvarado
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS
House Bill No. 5014, entitled:
A N A C T C O N V E RT I N G T H E R O A D
STRETCHING FROM BARANGAYS OF
STO. NIO, SANTIAGO AND CANALATE
IN THE CITY OF MALOLOS TO THE
BARANGAYS OF STO. NIO, SAN
ISIDRO I & II IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF
PAOMBONG AND TO THE BARANGAYS
OF SAN PEDRO, SAN PABLO, SAN
AGUSTIN, SAN MIGUEL, SAN JUAN, IN
THE MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY AND
BARANGAYS OF SAN JOSE, STA. LUCIA,
BULUSAN, CALIZON, BALUNGAO,
POBLACION IN THE MUNICIPALITY
OF CALUMPIT IN THE PROVINCE OF
BULACAN INTO A NATIONAL ROAD AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
By Representative Sy-Alvarado
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS
House Bill No. 5015, entitled:
AN ACT PROVIDING SCHOLARSHIP GRANTS
TO QUALIFIED TERTIARY EDUCATION
STUDENTS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREOF
By Representative Go (M.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER AND
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
House Bill No. 5016, entitled:
AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE BAGUIO CITY,
LA TRINIDAD, ITOGON, SABLAN, TUBA
AND TUBLAY SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE
4 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
(BLISTT ECOZONE) IN THE PROVINCE
OF BENGUET AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR
By Representative Go (M.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND
INDUSTRY AND THE COMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
House Bill No. 5017, entitled:
AN ACT DECLARING KENNON ROAD IN
THE CITY OF BAGUIO AND PROVINCE
OF BENGUET AS A NATIONAL HERITAGE
ZONE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
ITS RESTORATION, REHABILITATION,
CONSERVATION, DEVELOPMENT AND
OTHER PURPOSES
By Representative Go (M.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS
RESOLUTIONS
House Resolution No. 762, entitled:
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PROPER
HOUSE COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT
AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION,
ON THE STATUS OF THE COMELEC-
SMARTMATIC CONTRACTS OF LEASE
WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE OF MORE
THAN NINETY THOUSAND (90,000)
UNITS OF PRECINT-BASED OPTICAL
MARK READER (OMR) MACHINES FOR
THE MAY 2016 ELECTIONS
By Representative Batocabe
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 763, entitled:
A RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE
ON PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF
LEGISLATION, INTO THE MANIFEST
BREAKDOWN OF DISCIPLINE IN THE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE IN THE
LIGHT OF THE RECENT HIGH-PROFILE
CRIMINAL INCIDENTS ALLEGEDLY
INVOLVING OFFICERS AND MEMBERS
OF THE ORGANIZATION
By Representatives Acop, Bataoil, Tupas, Alejano
and Evardone
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 764, entitled:
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE
ON HUMAN RIGHTS TO CONDUCT AN
INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION,
ON THE FEBRUARY 3, 2017 - EXTRA-
JUDICIAL KILLING OF RENATO ANGLAO,
A MANOBO - PULANGIHON AND LUMAD
LEADER OF TRIBAL INDIGENOUS
OPPRESSED GROUP ASSOCIATION
(TINDOGA) OPPOSING THE PLANTATION
EXPANSION IN THE PROVINCE OF
BUKIDNON
By Representatives Casilao, Zarate, De Jesus, Tinio,
Brosas, Castro (F.L.) and Elago
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 765, entitled:
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEES
ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND AGRARIAN
REFORM TO CONDUCT A JOINT INQUIRY,
IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE
JANUARY 25, 2017-EXTRA-JUDICIAL
KILLING OF WENCESLAO PACQUIAO,
A FARMER-MEMBER OF SAN BENITO
FARMERS ASSOCIATION-KILUSANG
MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (SBFA
KMP NEGROS), IN CALATRAVA, NEGROS
OCCIDENTAL
By Representatives Casilao, Zarate, De Jesus, Tinio,
Brosas, Castro (F.L.) and Elago
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 766, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN
AID OF LEGISLATION, REGARDING THE
DEFUNDING OF PROJECT NOAH
By Representative Roque (H.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 767, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN
AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE ALLEGED
CORRUPTION AND IRREGULARITIES
IN THE OPERATION AND BUSINESS OF
PHILHEALTH
By Representative Roque (H.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 768, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY,
IN AID OF LEGISLATION, REGARDING
THE ANOMALOUS CONSTRUCTION OF A
HOTEL AND CASINO WITHIN THE ARMY
NAVY CLUB
By Representative Roque (H.)
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 769, entitled:
RESOLUTION URGING PRESIDENT
RODRIGO R. DUTERTE TO CONTINUE
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 5
THE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES (GRP) AND THE
NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC FRONT OF THE
PHILIPPINES (NDFP), CONSIDERING THE
UNPRECEDENTED AND SIGNIFICANT
ADVANCES MADE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE
AGENDA OF THE NEGOTIATIONS
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FILIPINO
PEOPLE
By Representatives Zarate, Abayon, Abellanosa,
Acharon, Aggabao, Albano, Almonte, Antonio,
Arcillas, Arenas, Aumentado, Bataoil, Batocabe,
Belmonte (J.), Bernos, Bertiz, Billones, Bolilia,
Bordado, Bravo (A.), Bravo (M.), Brosas, Bulut-
Begtang, Campos, Canama, Casilao, Castro
(F.L.), Catamco, Cerilles, Collantes, Cortes,
Crisologo, Cuaresma, Cueva, De Jesus, De
Vera, Del Mar, Del Rosario, Deloso-Montalla,
Durano, Dy, Elago, Eriguel, Escudero, Ferrer
(J.), Fortun, Garbin, Gonzaga, Gonzales
(A.P.), Gonzalez, Go (A.C.), Hernandez,
Jalosjos, Kho, Lacson, Lagman, Lee, Lopez
(B.), Malapitan, Mangaoang, Marcoleta,
Martinez, Mellana, Mendoza, Mirasol,
Montoro, Oaminal, Olivarez, Ong (E.), Ortega
(P.), Pacquiao, Paduano, Palma, Panganiban,
Panotes, Papandayan, Pimentel, Pineda,
Radaza, Rodriguez (M.), Roman, Roque (H.),
Roque (R.), Sacdalan, Salo, Salon, Salceda,
Santos-Recto, Sarmiento (E.), Savellano,
Sema, Siao, Singson (E.), Tejada, Ting, Tinio,
Tupas, Ty, Uybarreta, Vargas-Alfonso, Veloso,
Vergara, Villanueva, Villaraza-Suarez,
Violago, Yap (M.) and Zubiri
TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PEACE,
RECONCILIATION AND UNITY
House Resolution No. 770, entitled:
A RESOLUTION URGING THE GOVERNMENT
TO UNDERTAKE A FUNDING INITIATIVE
WITH THE END IN VIEW OF KEEPING
PROJECT NOAH OR NATIONWIDE
O P E R AT I O N A L A S S E S S M E N T O F
HAZARDS AFLOAT IN ORDER TO CARRY
ON ITS LIFE-SAVING PURPOSE
By Representative Castelo
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 771, entitled:
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE
IMMEDIATE INQUIRY INTO THE OVER
5 0 0 H I V- C O N TA M I N AT E D B L O O D
UNITS FOR DONATION ACCORDING
TO A 2016 DOH REPORT AND THE
PROMPT COUNTERMEASURE IN ORDER
TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE
RECIPIENTS
By Representative Castelo
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 772, entitled:
A RESOLUTION URGING PRESIDENT
RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE TO CREATE
A BOARD/COMMITTEE TO STUDY,
RECOMMEND AND DRAFT A NATIONAL
POLICY PROGRAM TO COMBAT THE
PROLIFERATION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS
COMPOSED OF MEMBERS OF THE
A D M I N I S T R AT I O N , O P P O S I T I O N ,
AND INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS,
SOCIOLOGISTS, AND OTHER EXPERTS
By Representative Erice
TO THE COMMITTEE ON DANGEROUS
DRUGS
House Resolution No. 773, entitled:
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER
AND SAFETY TO CONDUCT AN
INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF LEGISLATION,
TO DETERMINE THE VERACITY OF
AMNESTY INTERNATIONALS REPORT
REGARDING THE STATE-SPONSORED
CONTRACT KILLING OF SUSPECTED
DRUG USERS AND PUSHERS, IN ORDER
TO ENACT NECESSARY MEASURES TO
ADDRESS THE SAME
By Representative Alejano
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 774, entitled:
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE
APPROPRIATE HOUSE COMMITTEE
TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID
OF LEGISLATION, ON INCIDENTS OF
MARITIME PIRACY AND KIDNAPPING
IN THE PHILIPPINE WATERS AND THEIR
UNABATED PREVALENCE IN THE
RECENT YEARS
By Representative Alejano
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
House Resolution No. 775, entitled:
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE
APPROPRIATE HOUSE COMMITTEE
TO ASSESS THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS
OF THE IMMIGRATION BAN POLICY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(USA) ON FILIPINOS IN THE US WITH
THE END IN VIEW OF RECOMMENDING
APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT ACTION
6 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
OR POLICY AS WELL AS TO URGE
THE DUTERTE ADMINISTRATION TO
APPOINT A PHILIPPINE AMBASSADOR
TO THE USA TO ALLAY THE FEARS AND
CONFUSION BY FILIPINO COMMUNITIES
SURROUNDING THE IMMIGRATION BAN
POLICY
By Representative Alejano
TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS
Rep. Erlpe John Ping M. Amante for House Bills
No. 56, 475, 1208, and 4174, and House Resolution
No. 16;
Rep. Greg G. Gasataya for House Resolution No.
769;
Rep. John Marvin Yul Servo C. Nieto for House
Bill No. 4526 and House Resolutions No. 198 and 769;
Reps. Arthur R. Defensor Jr., Arnel U. Ty,
Bernadette BH Herrera-Dy, Deogracias Victor DV
B. Savellano, Victoria Isabel G. Noel, and Jeffrey D.
Khonghun for House Bills No. 4106 and 4462;
Rep. Alfredo Albee B. Benitez for House Bill
No. 4389;
Rep. Jose Antonio Kuya Jonathan R. Sy-Alvarado
for House Bill No. 4332;
Rep. Gavini Apol C. Pancho for House Bills No.
4136, 4302, 4342, and 4343;
Reps. Mark O. Go, Henry C. Ong, Sitti Djalia
A. Turabin-Hataman, and Ruby M. Sahali for House
Resolution No. 769;
Rep. Anna Katrina M. Enverga for House Bill No.
102 and House Resolution No. 769;
Rep. Edgar R. Erice for House Bills No. 180 and
4689, and House Resolution No. 198;
Reps. Micaela S. Violago and Emmanuel A.
Billones for House Bill No. 180;
Rep. Manuel Jose Mannix M. Dalipe for House
Bill No. 1393;
Rep. Delphine Gan Lee for House Bill No. 2447;
Rep. Carlos O. Cojuangco for House Bills No. 392
and 2635;
Rep. Gus S. Tambunting for House Bills No. 1991,
2208, 2209, 2214, 2215, 2216, 2217, 2302, 2332, 2349,
2351, and 2352;
Rep. Michelle M. Antonio for House Bill No.
2648;
Reps. Deogracias Victor DV B. Savellano and
Sandra Y. Eriguel, M.D. for House Bills No. 4570 and 4571;
Rep. Aurelio Dong D. Gonzales Jr. for House
Resolution No. 328;
Rep. Ma. Lucille L. Nava, M.D. for House Bill No.
219 and House Resolution No. 328;
Rep. Maria Vida Espinosa Bravo for House Bills
No. 1528, 2653, 3563, 3590, 3592, and 3593;
Rep. Celso L. Lobregat for House Bills No. 2452,
2456, and 4114;
Reps. Wilter Sharky Wee Palma II, Ruby M.
Sahali, Munir M. Arbison, Sitti Djalia A. Turabin-
Hataman, and Glona G. Labadlabad for House Bill
No. 2498;
Rep. Divina Grace C. Yu for House Bill No.
2498;
Rep. Carlo V. Lopez for House Bills No. 4689 and
4742;
Rep. Ma. Lourdes R. Aggabao for House Bill No.
4742;
Rep. Edward Vera Perez Maceda for House Bill
No. 2486;
Reps. Harlin Neil J. Abayon III, Eugene Michael
B. De Vera, and Joey Sarte Salceda for House Bills No.
2192 and 2193;
Reps. Rodolfo C. Farias, Conrado M. Estrella III,
and Lawrence H. Fortun for House Bill No. 4689;
Rep. Manuel F. Zubiri for House Bills No. 533,
534, 535, 2774, 2775, and 2926;
Rep. Eleanor C. Bulut-Begtang for House Bills No.
394, 575, 3645, 4795, and 4881, and House Resolution
No. 114;
Rep. Edcel C. Lagman for House Bill No. 4673;
and
Rep. Jose L. Atienza Jr. for House Bill No. 4521.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. CRISOLOGO. Mme. Speaker, may I move
for a one-minute suspension of the session.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
session is suspended.
It was 4:09 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:10 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER. (Rep. Cayetano). The
session is resumed.
CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 4727
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
REP. LOPEZ (B.). Mme. Speaker, under the
Calendar of Unfinished Business, I move that we
resume the consideration of House Bill No. 4727, as
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 7
contained in Committee Report No. 47, as submitted
by the Committee on Justice. For this purpose, may I
ask that the Secretary General be directed to read only
the title of the Bill.
I so move, Mme. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER. (Rep. Cayetano). Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
The Secretary General is hereby directed to read
only the title of the measure.
REP. LAGMAN. Objection, Mme. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER. (Rep. Cayetano). Yes,
what is the pleasure of Honorable Lagman?
REP. LAGMAN. Before we resume the consideration
of House Bill No. 4727, let us first call the roll to
establish the presence of a quorum.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. CRISOLOGO. May I request for a one-minute
suspension of the session, Mme. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER. (Rep. Cayetano). The
session is suspended.
It was 4:11 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:37 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
session is resumed.
REP. BONDOC. Mme. Speaker, it is an honor to
welcome back into the Session Hall our beloved former
Speaker and Representative from the Fourth District of
Pangasinan, the Hon. Jose C. De Venecia Jr. who is with
us today, Mme. Speaker. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). We
welcome Speaker De Venecia.
REP. LOPEZ (B.). Also, Mme. Speaker, we would
like to acknowledge the presence of the guests in the
gallery. They are guests of the Hon. Tomasito Tom
S. Villarin from the AKBAYAN Party-List, namely:
In Defense of Human Rights and Dignity Movement
(iDEFEND); Association of Major Religious Superiors
in the Philippines (AMRSP); Canossian Daughters
of Charity (FdCC); Canossa Health and Social
CenterTondo; Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate
Concepcion (SFIC); Augustinian Sisters of Our Lady of
Consolation (OSA-ASOLC); Siervas de San Jose (SS); Lay
Josephines; Holy Family School of Quezon City; Carmelite
Missionaries; Institute of Formation and Religious Studies
(IFRS); Religious of the Good Shepherds (RGS); Religious
of the Virgin Mary (RVM); Urban Missionaries; Couples
for Christ Foundation for Family and Life (CFC FFL)De
La Salle; Lay PartnersCWL; and Lay PartnersSimbahang
Lingkod ng Bayan.
Also here are: Member of the Cambodian Parliament,
Mu Sochua; Member of the Malaysian Parliament,
Kasthuri Patto; APHR Research Advocacy Director Oren
Samet; and APHR Program Manager Jennifer Bayang.
They are our guests in the gallery, Mme. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). We
welcome the guests of the Honorable Villarin. Welcome
to the House of Representatives.
REP. BELARO. Mme. Speaker, at this juncture, we
would also like to acknowledge the presence of the guests
of former Speaker Jose De Venecia, as well as several
Congressmen in the House of Representativesthe
delegation from the Universal Peace Federation, an
association composed of parliamentarians and peace
advocates from 140 countries all over the world headed by
the Regional President in Asia, Dr. Chung Sik Yong; the
Chairman of UPF Philippines, Engineer Julius Malicdem;
and the Vice President for Government and Public Relations,
Dr. Irma Astilla-Balulot, Mme. Speaker. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
guests of former Speaker De Venecia and our other
colleagues are welcome. Thank you for visiting us.
REP. BONDOC. Mme. Speaker, we would like
to welcome as well to the Session Hall our beloved
Representative from the Fourth District of Pangasinan whose
birthday is today, the Hon. Gina De Venecia. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). We
welcome our colleague, lovingly called by most of us as
Manay Gina, and we greet her a very happy and blessed
birthday today. (Applause)
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. BONDOC. Mme. Speaker, I move for a few
minutes suspension of the session, so that we can spend
time with our honored guests.
I so move, Mme. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
session is suspended.
It was 4:41 p.m.
8 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017

RESUMPTION OF SESSION Daza Matugas

De Jesus Mercado
At 4:49 p.m., the session was resumed. De Venecia Mirasol
De Vera Montoro
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The Defensor Noel
session is resumed. Del Mar Nograles (J.J.)
Deloso-Montalla Nograles (K.A.)
ROLL CALL Durano Nolasco
Elago Nuez-Malanyaon
REP. CRISOLOGO. Mme. Speaker, I move that Enverga Oaminal
we call the roll. Eriguel Olivarez
I so move, Mme. Speaker. Ermita-Buhain Ong (E.)
Escudero Ortega (P.)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). Is Espina Ortega (V.N.)
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; Estrella Pacquiao
the motion is approved. Farias Paduano
The Secretary General will please call the roll. Fernando Palma
Ferrer (J.) Pancho
The Secretary General called the roll, and the Fortun Panganiban
result is as follows, per Journal No. 71, dated February Fortuno Panotes
15, 2017: Fuentebella Papandayan
Garbin Pichay
PRESENT Garcia (G.) Pimentel
Garcia-Albano Pineda
Abayon Belmonte (R.) Garin (S.) Primicias-Agabas
Abellanosa Bertiz Gasataya Quimbo
Abu Billones Gatchalian Radaza
Acharon Biron Go (M.) Ramos
Acop Bondoc Gonzaga Relampagos
Acosta Bordado Gonzales (A.P.) Revilla
Acosta-Alba Bravo (A.) Gonzales (A.D.) Roa-Puno
Adiong Bravo (M.V.) Gonzalez Rocamora
Agarao Brosas Gullas Rodriguez (I.)
Aggabao Bulut-Begtang Hernandez Rodriguez (M.)
Aglipay-Villar Cagas Herrera-Dy Roman
Albano Calderon Hofer Roque (H.)
Alejano Calixto-Rubiano Labadlabad Sacdalan
Almonte Caminero Lacson Sagarbarria
Alonte Canama Lagman Sahali
Alvarez (F.) Casilao Lanete Salo
Alvarez (M.) Castelo Laogan Salon
Alvarez (P.) Castro (F.L.) Lazatin Sambar
Antonino Castro (F.H.) Lee Santos-Recto
Antonio Catamco Lobregat Sarmiento (C.)
Aragones Cayetano Lopez (B.) Sarmiento (E.M.)
Arbison Cerafica Lopez (C.) Savellano
Arenas Cerilles Lopez (M.L.) Sema
Atienza Chavez Macapagal-Arroyo Siao
Aumentado Chipeco Madrona Silverio
Bagatsing Cojuangco Malapitan Singson
Banal Cortes Manalo Suansing (E.)
Barzaga Cosalan Mangaoang Suansing (H.)
Bataoil Crisologo Mangudadatu (Z.) Suarez
Batocabe Cuaresma Marcoleta Sy-Alvarado
Belaro Dalipe Mario Tambunting
Belmonte (J.C.) Dalog Martinez Tan (A.)
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 9

Teves Velasco THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 4727,

Tiangco Velasco-Catera entitled: AN ACT IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY
Ting Veloso ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, REPEALING FOR
Tinio Vergara THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9346, ENTITLED
Umali Villanueva AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF
Unabia Villaraza-Suarez DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND
Ungab Villarica AMENDING ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED,
Unico Villarin OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL
Uy (J.) Violago CODE, AND OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS.
Uy (R.) Yap (M.)
Uybarreta Yu THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
Vargas-Alfonso Zamora (M.C.) Floor Leader is recognized.
Velarde Zarate
REP. LOPEZ (B.). Mme. Speaker, the parliamentary
THE SECRETARY GENERAL. Mme. Speaker, the status of the Bill is that it is in the period of sponsorship
roll call shows that 202 Members responded to the call. and debate. I move that the Hon. Reynaldo V. Umali,
Chairperson of the Committee on Justice, be recognized.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). With
202 Members present, the Chair declares the presence THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano).
of a quorum. Honorable Umali, the Sponsor of the measure, is
recognized.
REP. ATIENZA. Mme. Speaker.
REP. UMALI. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Thank
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). Yes, you, Your Honor.
what is the pleasure of the Honorable Atienza? The Sponsors are ready for the interpellation and
questions from our colleagues.
REP. ATIENZA. Again, just to set the record straight
and make it accurate, our count is that we only have 192 REP. DAZA. Mme. Speaker.
on the floor, and this is more than a quorum, admittedly,
but it is not what the Secretariat sees on the floor now THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). Thank
when they declared 202 Members on the floor. To set the you.
record straight, again, we have our own count. We know
we are accurate, and they have added a little more in their REP. DAZA. Mme. Speaker.
extrapolating effort on the roll call. Thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). His Floor Leader is recognized.
Honors comments are noted. Thank you.
The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. LOPEZ (B.). Mme. Speaker, I move that we
recognize the Gentleman from the First District ofAgusan del
CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 4727 Norte, the Hon. Lawrence H. Fortun, for his interpellation.
Continuation
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE Honorable Fortun is recognized.

REP. LOPEZ (B.). Mme. Speaker, under the
Calendar of Unfinished Business, I move that we
resume the consideration of House Bill No. 4727, as
contained in Committee Report No. 47, as submitted
by the Committee on Justice. For this purpose, may I
ask that the Secretary General be directed to read only
the title of the Bill.
I so move, Mme. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). The
Secretary General is directed to read the title of the
measure.
REP. FORTUN. Thank you, Mme. Speaker.
Mme. Speaker, there are several arguments against
the
REP. DAZA. Mme. Speaker, before the distinguished
Gentleman from Butuan City proceeds with his
interpellation, I would like to raise a parliamentary
inquiry relating to the ruling of the Chair in the session
of February 8, 2017. I was absent on that day but when
I read the Journal, and according to the Journal,
REP. FORTUN. Mme. Speaker, the Honorable Daza
10 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
mayI just would like to make an interjection. May
I request, Mme. Speaker, that my clock be stopped in
the meantime that the Honorable Daza is making his
manifestation.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). Yes,
noted. Honorable Daza, please proceed.
REP. DAZA. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. I thought
I had already been recognized.
I am raising a parliamentary inquiry, Mme. Speaker,
in relation to the interpretation of Section 91 of the
Rules.
I was absent during the session of February 8, 2017,
but I reviewed the Journal for that day, and this Journal
has been approved. The Journal says, and I quote:
At this point, the Chair cited Section 91 of
the amended Provisional Rules of the House
regarding the one-hour limit to speak in a
debate on any question and requested Rep.
Lagman to wind up his interpellation.
Rep. Lagman maintained that he had
not spoken for more than one hour in his
interpellation. He stressed that the counting of
his time should not include the time used by
the Sponsor in stating his answers which were
long whereas his questions were short. He
appealed to the Body to refer to the transcript
of stenographic notes (TSNs) that would show
the minutes that he had consumed.
My parliamentary inquiry is this: Is it the
interpretation of the Chair, from now, or henceforth, that
Section 91 would be applied against an interpellator?
I am asking this question, Mme. Speaker, because I
have researched Section 91 and its antecedents, and my
research shows that the one-hour limit is applicable not
against the interpellator but the Member who has the
floor. At this time, the Sponsors have the floor. So, there
was a misapplication of the rule by the Chair, and which,
unfortunately, was upheld during an appeal.
Let me explain, Mme. Speaker.
Section 91 of the Provisional Rules states that A
Member shall not be allowed to speak for more than
one hour in debate on any question. This is not a new
provision in the rules.
According to a book, which is an authoritative
book by Dr. Inocencio Pareja, the Rules of the House
of Representatives, in the Sixth Congress, there was
already a similar rule, and this was Section 3, which
says that no Member shall occupy more than one hour
in debate on any question of the House. This has been
interpreted, Mme. Speaker. According to this book, on
page 365, and I quote, Time consumed in interpellation
is on the Member having the floor that is why he has
the right to yield or not to questions. In other words,
the one-hour limit is applicable on the Sponsor because
it is the Sponsors time and he has the floor. It is not
applicable on the interpellator.
Now, I rose on the ruling because the Gentleman
from Albay, Congressman Lagman, was taken off the
floor due to his misapplication of the rule; and adding
insult to injury, the rule that was cited was a rule that
was applicable to the Sponsor, not to him.
Now, according to our rules now, and let me, Mme.
Speaker, quote from our present rules, this is Rule XXV,
Section 160: Rulings on questions raised by Members
shall form part of the parliamentary practice of the House.
Section 161, Suppletory Provisions, says:
The parliamentary practices of the Philippine
Assembly, the House of Representatives, the
Senate of the Philippines and the Batasang
Pambansa shall be suppletory to these rules.
Since a similar rule almost identically worded had
been interpreted in the Sixth Congress in the sense
that the one-hour limit is applied on the Member who
is on the floor and not on the interpellator, I would like
to recommend to the Rules Committee to revisit its
position so that we might be able to guide it properly in
our proceedings; otherwise, Mme. Speaker, every time
that a question is raised here, I am going to stand on a
point of order until hell freezes over and until this House
properly interprets this rule. Thank you, Mme. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER. (Rep. Cayetano).
Would the Majority Leader care to respond?
REP. FARIAS. Mme. Speaker, the Gentleman did
not raise a point of order. He was making a manifestation
and out of respect to the Gentleman, I did not interrupt
him. But our parliamentary situation was that the
Honorable Fortun had the floor and was speaking on
the issue and he could not have been interrupted.
REP. DAZA. He yielded to me, Mme. Speaker.
Let us not squirm through technicalities. This is a
democratic and deliberative Body. We are here dealing
with a vital piece of legislation that is of transcendental
importance to the whole country.
I raised that parliamentary inquiry precisely in
order to give the Rules Committee the opportunity to
revisit the proper interpretation of this rule because if
it does not, any time the Rules Committee questions an
interpellator for having exceeded its one-hour limit, I
will raise a point of order and go to the whole process
of voting. That, I think, is not going to save us time.
I know that we all want to save time, that is why
now, I have not raised a point of order. I only raised a
parliamentary inquiry again with an appeal to the Rules
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 11
Committee to revisit the proper interpretation of the
rules in the interest of fairness.
REP. FARIAS. May I respond, Mme. Speaker.
Like I said, the Gentleman was raising a
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano).
Parliamentary inquiry.
REP. FARIAS. parliamentary inquiry while
a Member had the floor. The Member cannot yield
the floor because this is not a Privilege Hour. He is
interpellating and he cannot yield to a Member to be
interpellated and be interrupted; otherwise, we will have
an unruly conduct of business.
So, Mme. Speaker, may I move that we continue
with the interpellation of the Gentleman, and at the
proper time, we will respond to the inquiry of the
Gentleman from Northern Samar.
REP. DAZA. With that assurance, Mme. Speaker,
with that assurance, Mr. Speaker, I vest my trust and
confidence to the distinguished Majority Leader who is
a man of honor and integrity that the Rules Committee,
under his leadership, will revisit this provision and apply
it fairly, apply it in accordance with the established
practice of the House, which is one of the suppletory
sources for interpreting the present rules.
Thank you, Mme. Speaker.
REP. FARIAS. Mme. Speaker, I did not say that
the Committee on Rules will revisit, I said I will address
the parliamentary inquiry at the proper time.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). Yes,
the Majority Leader, I think, has been very clear that
he will address the parliamentary inquiry posed by the
Honorable Daza, and at this point, we will give the floor
back to the Honorable Fortun.
Please proceed with the interpellation.
REP. DAZA. Mme. Speaker, will he address it now
or will he address it after?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Cayetano). I
believe that he will address it at the proper time. That
was his exact words. And so, we leave it to his best
discretion to address the concerns of the Gentleman.
From my point of view, yesterday, we had a very fruitful
discussion, we had two interpellators, and I think, the
time is right for us to proceed at this point.
Thank you. Please proceed, Honorable Fortun.
REP. DAZA. Thank you, Mme. Speaker.
REP. FORTUN. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. As
earlier said, Mme. Speaker, there are several arguments
against the reimposition of the death penalty. This
Representation would like to zero in on four major
issues: number one, the abolition of the death penalty
under the 1987 Constitution; number two, the heinous
crimes as compelling reason for its reimposition;
number three, the errors in conviction; and number four,
the international commitments of our country.
I would like to go back, Mme. Speaker, to the earlier
debate on the abolition of the death penalty under the
1987 Constitution which, because of the insistence on
an erroneous or flawed construction, has not been settled
in the last three or four session days that we have been
debating on this proposed measure to reimpose the
death penalty.
Let me state, Mme. Speaker, Article III, Section 19,
paragraph (1) of the 1987 Constitution, which says:
Excessive fines shall not be imposed,
nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
My first question, Mme. Speaker, to the distinguished
Sponsor is very simple: Does the Constitution allow the
imposition of excessive fines or the infliction of cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment?
REP. UMALI. The Constitution is clear, that is not
allowed, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.
REP. FORTUN. Now, Mme. Speaker, based on
Article III, Section 19, paragraph (1), is the imposition
of death penalty the rule or the strict exception?
REP. UMALI. I believe that question has been
asked and answered, but anyway, we would like to
respond that the general rule is that the death penalty
has been suspended and shall not be imposed, and the
exception is when there are compelling reasons for
heinous crimes, the same may be reimposed.
REP. FORTUN. In other words, Mme. Speaker, the
1987 Constitution prohibits the imposition of the death
penalty; and if there being any exception, it cannot be
just any exception that Congress may deem fit, but
rather, only the very strict exception provided for under
the Constitution, is that correct, Mme. Speaker?
REP. UMALI. The exception is, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress may
provide for its reimposition by law.
12 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
REP. FORTUN. Thank you, distinguished
Sponsor.
Mme. Speaker, just a yes or a no from the honorable
distinguished Sponsor because this was already
answered during the early interpellations, did the
Constitution abolish the death penalty?
REP. UMALI. It cannot be answered; it did not
abolish, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the death penalty.
It was merely suspended, and this was the same ruling of
the High Court in the case of People vs. Echegaray.
REP. FORTUN. Thank you, distinguished Sponsor.
Now, when the Constitution was ratified and became
effective, did it not have the effect of prohibiting already
the imposition of death penalty by any court?
REP. UMALI. That is correct, but it provided for
certain exceptions which authorizes Congress to provide
for its reimposition.
REP. FORTUN. Now, minus Congress, Mme.
Speaker, my question is very simple. At the time the
1987 Constitution was ratified and became effective,
did it not have the effect of already prohibiting the
imposition of death penalty by any court?
REP. UMALI. May I beg the pardon of Your
Honor, your question is at the time of the ratification
of the
REP. FORTUN. When the 1987 Constitution
became effective, did it not have the effect of prohibiting
the imposition of death penalty by any court?
REP. UMALI. My response to that was that it was
merely suspended, the imposition, and the Congress is
allowed to reimpose it for compelling reasons.
REP. FORTUN. Yes, Mme. Speaker. Absent any law
reimposing the death penalty, did the 1987 Constitution
not have the effect of prohibiting the imposition of death
penalty by any court?
REP. UMALI. That is correct, we agree to that.
In fact, that was what happened from the time the
Constitution became effective, until 1993 when R.A.
No. 7659 reimposed it.
REP. FORTUN. Now, Mme. Speaker, did the
1987 Constitution also not have the effect of reducing
to reclusion perpetua all death sentences that had
already become final and executory at the time the 1987
Constitution became effective?
REP. UMALI. That is correct. In fact, that was what
happened; all death penalty convictions were reduced
to life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua.
REP. FORTUN. And, Mme. Speaker, in the case
of death sentences on appeal or under review at that
time, at the time the 1987 Constitution was ratified and
subsequently became effective, will the distinguished
Sponsor agree with this Representation that whether
or not death penalty may be imposed should the court
sustain the conviction of the accused, it already ceased
to be an issue?
In other words, Mme. Speaker, what was there for
the appellate court to ascertain was the correctness and
propriety of conviction of the accused by the lower
court. But, as to the penalty, the appellate court could not
anymore in any case and any other circumstance sustain
the imposition of the death penalty. Is that correct, Mme.
Speaker, distinguished Sponsor?
REP. UMALI. That is correct until Republic Act
No. 7659 was enacted which reimposed death penalty in
1993, until 2006, when again R.A. No. 9346 suspended
the same.
REP. FORTUN. Yes, Mme. Speaker. But my
question was, in the case of death sentences under
review by the Supreme Court at the time the 1987
Constitution became effective, is it not that the Supreme
Court could not anymore sustain the imposition of the
death penalty? In other words, that is no longer an issue.
All that the court could resolve was the propriety and
correctness of the conviction of the accused, but as of
the penalty, it cannot sustain the imposition of the death
penalty by the lower court. Otherwise, Mme. Speaker,
the decision to the contrary would be a violation of the
1987 Constitution. Is that correct?
REP. UMALI. That is correct. As I have mentioned,
but then, there was a law passed in 1993 which
reimposed the death penalty, and therefore, during
that time, which was also after the 1987 Constitution,
reimposition of the death penalty or decision imposing
the death penalty has been authorized by law.
REP. FORTUN. At any rate, Mme. Speaker, what
I was asking was prior to the law reimposing the
death penalty. At any rate, Mme. Speaker, may I ask
the distinguished Sponsor, if you would agree with
this Representation that the provision did not merely
suspend the implementation of the death penalty
already imposed but actually removed the sentence
and replaced it with reclusion perpetua, is that correct,
Mme. Speaker? In the case, Mme. Speaker, of death
sentences already imposedwhen the Constitution said
any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced
to reclusion perpetua, did it not have the effect of
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 13
permanently removing the death penalty and replacing
it with reclusion perpetua?
REP. UMALI. What is the question?
REP. FORTUN. In particular cases, Mme. Speaker,
iyon pong mga death penalties that were already
imposed when the Constitution provided that any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, hindi po ba ang epekto noon ay permanently
reduced to reclusion perpetua iyon?
REP. UMALI. Hindi naman po, Mme. Speaker,
Your Honor, kasi nga sabi ngby specific provision
of the Constitution as well ay puwedeng reimpose iyan
for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. So,
malinaw na malinaw po sa ating Konstitusyon na hindi
permanente iyan dahil puwede pong ibalik iyan and
that can be found in Section 19, Article III of the 1987
Constitution as well.
REP. FORTUN. Mme. Speaker, my question is
very specific. I am referring to the death penalty already
imposed. Iyon pong mga death penalty na in-impose
na po ng husgado at awaiting implementation na lang
at the time the 1987 Constitution was approved and
became effective, the Constitution says, any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua. My question is, is it not that the provision of
the Constitution had the effect of permanently reducing
to reclusion perpetua all death sentences that were
already imposed
REP. UMALI. At that time.
REP. FORTUN. at that time?
REP. UMALI. I agree, I agree. Wala naman po
tayong quarrel doon sa pag-reduce ng death penalty
to reclusion perpetua pursuant to the provision of the
Constitution, pero hindi ibig sabihin nito na permanente
na iyon forever, dahil po noong 1996 nga, ang sinasabi
ko, or 1993, na-reimpose po ulit iyon. In fact, mayroon
pong binitay noong 1993, iyong si Echegaray noong na-
reimpose iyong death penalty kaya hindi po permanente,
kung hindi, suspended lang po siya.
REP. FORTUN. I am referring, Mme. Speaker, to
the cases that were already decided.
REP. UMALI. Katulad ng sinabi ko, I fully agree
with the distinguished interpellator na na-reduce po
at iyon po ang ginawa ng ating gobyerno noong mga
panahon na iyon.
REP. FORTUN. Thank you, Mme. Chair, Mme. Speaker.
Now, my next question, Mme. Speaker, is this: is there
still any way or any chance under our Constitution or our
remedial and substantive laws that those death sentences
already imposed but reduced to reclusion perpetua
by the 1987 Constitution be revived or reimposed?
REP. UMALI. Wala po. Hindi po puwedeng i-revive
na iyon because laws are always interpreted in favor
of the accused and, therefore, kapag nagkaroon po ng
constitutional provision, na kung saan sinuspinde po
iyon, hindi na po puwedeng ibalik iyon because the
Constitution cannot be interpreted; otherwise, it will
run counter to the rules on statutory interpretation,
where all laws or even constitutional provisions must
be interpreted in favor of the accused.
REP. FORTUN. Thank you, Mme. Speaker.
At least that is very clear now, Mme. Speaker, that
the 1987 Constitution is abolitionist in its perspective
on the matter of death penalty, because the framers
of the Constitution were very much aware that death
sentences that were already imposed but would be
reduced to reclusion perpetua forever and there is not
any chance, under our jurisdiction, that these sentences
that were reduced to reclusion perpetua could be again
imposed with the penalty of death.
Let me proceed, Mme. Speaker, to another
question on the matter of compelling reasons. Will the
distinguished Sponsor agree with this Representation,
Mme. Speaker, when I say that under the Constitution,
the provision that says that any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua is clear
and unambiguous and, thus, therefore does not need any
further interpretation?
REP. UMALI. We fully agree to that, Mme.
Speaker, and Your Honor.
REP. FORTUN. And, Mme. Speaker, not only is this
provision very clear and free from ambiguity, it is also
very importantly, immediately effective and does not
need any enabling law to be applicable to any penalty
of death already imposed and awaiting implementation
at the time it was ratified.
REP. UMALI. We fully subscribe to that, Mme.
Speaker, Your Honor.
REP. FORTUN. Now, Mme. Speaker, does the
1987 Constitution recognize the possible existence of
heinous crimes? Meaning, the Constitution already
contemplated heinous crimes and this category of
crimes is not something that cropped up only after the
1987 Constitution was approved.
REP. UMALI. I think, Mme. Speaker, Your
14 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
Honor, the Constitution is clear, and it is explicit in the
Constitution that heinous crimes had been recognized
as among the reasons, apart from compelling reasons,
for the reimposition of death penalty.
REP. FORTUN. Prior to the 1987 Constitution,
Mme. Speaker, were there already heinous crimes
committed in the country?
REP. UMALI. I would like to think so because, you
know, all of these murders and/or kidnappings had been
happening since time immemorial.
REP. FORTUN. Thank you, Mme. Speaker.
And, were there perpetrators of these same heinous
crimes that are so considered under House Bill No. 4727
that were brought to justice and convicted to suffer the
penalty of death?
REP. UMALI. Before the 1987 Constitution?
REP. FORTUN. Yes, before the 1987 Constitution,
Mme. Speaker, mayroon na po bang mga nangyaring
heinous crimes and the perpetrators of these heinous
crimes were brought to justice and sentenced to suffer
the penalty of death?
REP. UMALI. Palagay ko po, mayroon po. I can
distinctly recall the case of the rape of Maggie Dela
Riva where iyong mga akusado po doon or iyong mga
convicted doon ay pinarusahan ng kamatayan.
REP. FORTUN. Yes, Mme. Speaker, in fact,
the distinguished Sponsor may perhaps agree with
this humble Representation that at the time the 1987
Constitution was crafted and was finally ratified, there
were sentences of death already imposed and awaiting
implementation for the same crimes considered as
heinous under House Bill No. 4727. Is that correct,
Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor?
REP. UMALI. I am sorry I did not get the answer, kasi,
we are talking about prior to the 1987 Constitution. Now,
you are referring to House Bill No. 4727, which is not even
a law at this point in time. So, may this Representation
be clarified as to the specifics of your question?
REP. FORTUN. I will restate, Mme. Speaker, the
question. Will the distinguished Sponsor agree with
this humble Representation that at the time the 1987
Constitution was ratified, there were already sentences
of death already imposed and awaiting implementation
for crimes that are considered heinous under House
Bill No. 4727? Ang ibig kong sabihin, iyong mga
nangyaring mga crimes na pinatawan ng death sentence
at the time the 1987 Constitution was approved, are the
same crimes considered heinous under our proposed
House Bill No. 4727.
REP. UMALI. Mayroon po. Iyong rape na binanggit
ko. Mayroon din po tayo sa Bill natin ngayon na kasama
and there are 20 other crimes that are incorporated in the
Bill as presently crafted and approved by the Committee
on Justice.
REP. FORTUN. Thank you, distinguished Sponsor,
Mme. Speaker.
The 1987 Constitution provided that any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua. Will the distinguished Sponsor agree with
this Representation that the Constitution did not
distinguish whether the crimes for which the death
penalty was already imposed were heinous or not.
In other words, in the provision that says all death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, the Constitution did not distinguish
whether or not this death penalty was imposed for
crimes that were considered heinous or for crimes that
were considered not so heinous. Walang distinction
na inilagay sa ating Constitution.
REP. UMALI. I believe, Mme. Speaker, Your
Honor, that there is no need for such distinction because
the death penalty can only be imposed for crimes which
are heinous. Hindi naman po mai-impose-an ng death
penalty iyong simple rape o kaya po iyong estafa or
somethingit has to be gruesome; it has to be defined
by no less than the Supreme Court na ma-impose iyong
death penalty only for those types of crimes.
REP. FORTUN. Suffice it to say, Mme. Speaker,
that the Constitution did not state specifically that only
the death penalty imposed on offenses considered
heinous shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. In fact,
the Constitution only says, any death penalty shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Anyway, Mme. Speaker, I will proceed to the next
question.
In other words, Mme. Speaker, regardless of whether
the crimes committed were heinous or not, all death
sentences already imposed for the commission of these
crimes without distinction were reduced by the 1987
Constitution to reclusion perpetua. This brings me, Mme.
Speaker, to the next question on the issue of heinous crimes
as a compelling reason to impose the death penalty. Will
the distinguished Sponsor agree with this Representation,
Mme. Speaker, that because the Constitution reduced to
reclusion perpetua the death penalty already imposed
without distinction, whether or not these were heinous
crimes, the fact that there may be heinous crimes
is not sufficient reason to impose death penalty. In
other words, the mere existence or occurrence of
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 15
certain heinous crimes is not the compelling reason
contemplated under the 1987 Constitution.
REP. UMALI. The Sponsor fully agrees with that,
that heinous crime is not synonymous to compelling
reasons, and this Representation has already enumerated
the compelling reasons for the imposition of the death
penalty for those involving heinous crimes.
R E P. F O RT U N . I n f a c t , M m e . S p e a k e r,
distinguished Sponsor, the Constitution says that
neither shall the death penalty be imposed except
for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.
It was not couched in this way, neither shall the
death penalty be imposed except for heinous
crimes. It says, except for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes. In other words, the
Constitution was couched in a manner that lays
down a very clear State policy that the existence
of heinous crimes alone is not sufficient to call
for the reimposition of the death penalty. The
Constitution requires that there be compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes. What could be
one of these compelling reasons, Mme. Speaker?
Maybe widespread criminality involving heinous
crimes could be a compelling reason and this
was cited by the honorable Chair of the Justice
Committee, our distinguished Sponsor. May I ask
the distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker, if he is
familiar with the Philippine Statistics Authority.
REP. UMALI. Mme. Speaker, again, two or
three previous interpellators had already asked these
questions, but at any rate, I have cited pertinent portions
of the case of People vs. Echegaray where the Supreme
Court ruled that these data or statistics are not necessary
for the purpose of the reimposition of the death penalty.
In fact, as I mentioned in the previous responses I made,
if you will just read the papers, watch television and/or
listen to radio on a daily basis, you will hear that these
crimes are being committed left and right, and to me,
that is how I view that there is a compelling reason
for the reimposition of the death penalty. In fact, the
criminality that is happening everyday is becoming
graver and graver. In fact, even the President in one
of his speeches mentioned that prior to the abolition
or to the suspension of the death penalty under R.A.
No. 9346, there were only 189 convictions involving
heinous crimes. But from 2006 until today, there are
now about 6,000 or an increase by 3,000 percent. But
I do not like to resort to or rely on the statistics for
purposes of pursuing this Bill on the reimposition of the
death penalty because the Supreme Court in the case
of People vs. Echegaray had already ruled upon that
it is not necessary or a precondition for the passage of
House Bill No. 4727.
REP. FORTUN. Mme. Speaker, I was asking if the
distinguished Sponsor is familiar with the Philippine
Statistics Authority, because the PSA serves as the central
statistical authority on primary data collection in the
Philippines. It collects, compiles, analyzes and publishes
important and vital statistical information. According
to the Philippine Statistics Authority, Mme. Speaker,
there was a significant or there has been a significant
decrease every year of the crime rate in the country.
I would like to read for the record, Mme. Speaker.
It says here that for reported crimes, as to the total
for indexed and non-indexed crimes in 2009, there
were 502,665; in 2010, there were 324,083. That is a
decrease of about 200,000. In 2011, from 324,000 plus,
it decreased to 246,958; and in 2012, it decreased further
to 217,812. That is only until 2012, Mme. Speaker,
according to the Philippine Statistics Authority data.
There are more recent data, Mme. Speaker, and
these are not only from the Philippine Statistics
Authority. These are from the Philippine National
Police. This is the PNP Annual Report for 2015. It says
that in 2014, there were 9,756 and 9,643 murders in
2015. There is a decrease. In the case of homicide, from
3,349, it went down to 2,835; for physical injury, from
65,763, it went down to 49,845; in the case of robbery,
from 43,726, it went down to 31,741; and in the case of
carnapping, from almost 14,000, we have now 12,000.
Mme. Speaker, these are very clear statistical data that
there has been, over the years, significant decrease in
the crime rate, both for indexed and non-indexed crimes.
That is minus the death penalty, Mme. Speaker.
REP. UMALI. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I would
like to commend the distinguished Gentleman for all
of the data he just cited. But then again, I would like
to quote pertinent portions of the case of People vs.
Echegaray, which somehow rendered the statistics
immaterial, and I quote:
It is immaterial and irrelevant that R.A.
No. 7659 cites that there has been an alarming
upsurge of such crimes, for the same was never
intended by said law to be the yardstick to
determine the existence of compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes. Fittingly, thus, what
R.A. No. 7659 states is that the Congress, in
the interest of justice, public order and rule of
law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize
the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds
compelling reasons to impose the death penalty
for said crimes.
This is no less than the Supreme Court which
has already ruled upon the matter. So, I could not
comprehend why we need to further discuss these issues,
most especially when in 1993, the death penalty was
16 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
already reimposed. This was after the 1987 Constitution
was already effective.
Now, what are we doing? In fact, this Bill that
we are presenting on the floor, House Bill No. 4727,
is just a revival of the old law that has been upheld
by the Supreme Court, which is R.A. No. 7659. So,
with all due respect to the distinguished interpellator
that perhaps, we need not belabor on this point on
statistics because the Supreme Court had already
ruled upon the matter.
REP. FORTUN. Mme. Speaker, with due respect to
the distinguished Sponsor, this Representation begs to
disagree that statistics are immaterial in the discussion
on this matter, because it was the distinguished Sponsor
himself who raised it as one of the compelling reasons
for the reimposition of the death penalty, the fact, the
claimed fact that there is widespread criminality, and
there is no way we can measure whether or not there is
widespread criminality if we do not rely on statistics.
That is why, Mme. Speaker, the point earlier raised
by this Representation was that it is not enough that
there exists heinous crimes because there have been
heinous crimes since time immemorial. There has got
to be widespread commission of heinous crimes so
that probably may become a compelling reason for the
reimposition of the death penalty.
Now, how do we determine widespread criminality
if we do not rely on statistics? That is why, Mme.
Speaker, this Representation went the whole hog to
gather the necessary data that would tell us whether
or not it is true that there is widespread criminality,
whether or not it is true that the absence of the penalty
of death has been the reason there has been a constantly
increasing rate in crimes in the country. On the contrary,
Mme. Speaker, there has been no death penalty for one
decade already, and in the last 10 years, there has been
a consistent decline in the crime rate in the country
based on statistics not only by the Philippine Statistics
Authority, but also by the Philippine National Police,
Mme. Speaker.
REP. UMALI. It is unfortunate that the distinguished
interpellator does share the views of the Sponsor on the
matter and equally of the jurisprudence established in
People vs. Echegaray. Ultimately, if there will be issues
on legality or constitutionality, this will go back to the
Supreme Court, and I do not see any reason the Supreme
Court will change its stand on the matter.
At any rate, what we say here is only the position
of this Representation. Ultimately, what will matter is
the decision of this august Chamber. Ultimately, this is
what will spell the difference between approval and or
disapproval of this Bill.
REP. FORTUN. Thank you, distinguished Sponsor,
Mme. Speaker. Suffice it to say, that based on statistics
by the PSA and the PNP, it is not true that there is a
constant increase in the crime rate. In fact, the statistics
will show that there has been a significant decrease
over the years.
Nonetheless, Mme. Speaker, may I proceed to
another point. Let me proceed to another important
data. This has relevance to the issue of correctness and
propriety of court decisions. Is it not, Mme. Speaker,
distinguished Sponsor, that in the case of People vs.
Mateo, decided in 2004, when the death penalty was
still effective by virtue of Republic Act No. 9346,
no less that the Supreme Court admitted that 71.77
percent of decisions imposing the death penalty that
were elevated to the court for review turned out to be
erroneous judgments. In fact, there were cases where
the death penalty was only reduced to a lower penalty.
But actually, the court even rendered an acquittal in
several cases, Mme. Speaker.
REP. UMALI. What is the question, Mme. Speaker,
Your Honor?
REP. FORTUN. Yes, the question, Mme. Speaker,
is that would the distinguished Sponsor agree that based
on the decision of the Supreme Court, decided in 2004,
when the death penalty was still in effect, there was an
admission from no less than the Supreme Court that
71.77 percent of the death sentences that were imposed
and elevated to the court for review turned out to be
erroneous judgments. The Supreme Court, in several
cases, did not only reduce the penalty, but in fact, even
rendered an acquittal of the accused or the convict in
this case, Mme. Speaker?
REP. UMALI. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I cannot
go against the ruling of the Supreme Court on the matter.
But if I will interpret it, it even bolsters the fact that we
need to reimpose the death penalty because of the strict
process that one has to go through before the death
penalty is reimposed.
In fact, after the lower court has rendered and
handed the verdict of death, there is a mode of appeal
to the Court of Appeals, and even if the Court of
Appeals would sustain the decision of the lower
court and even if the convict or the accused will
not appeal to the Supreme Court, there is a process
which is the automatic review by a 15-member court
of the decision of the lower court and of the Court of
Appeals. So, it provides for a process that, I guess,
will safeguard the welfare of the people before any
death penalty will be carried out.
In fact, even before a death convict shall go to
the death chambers, the President has ample powers,
clemency and/or pardon to remove any death convict in
the death row from being subjected to the death penalty.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 17
This is what we are sayingthat this is the better
process, due process, or death with due process that will
be pursued when we reimpose the death penalty against
what is happening now which is happening everywhere.
In fact, this is my biggest worry of all, that even law
enforcers are now party to these gruesome killings and/
or heinous crimes. This is what moved us and this is
what made us believe that this is a compelling reason
for the reimposition of the death penalty involving
heinous crimes.
REP. FORTUN. On the contrary, Mme. Speaker, the
admission by the Supreme Court that 71.77 percent of
death sentences were erroneous judgments, this is an
alarming data, Mme. Speaker, because it only shows
that we have a problematic criminal justice system. The
errors could not be mere misappreciation of the cases by
judges of lower courts. It demonstrates a problematic
criminal justice system, Mme. Speaker, because this
may be caused by poor law enforcement, poor case
buildup, poor prosecution. That is why we are unable
to come up with accurate decisions.
Mme. Speaker, will the distinguished Sponsor agree
with this Representation that unlike other penalties like
reclusion perpetua and lower penaltiesin the case
of the death penalty, when a convict has already been
executed, even if new-found evidence comes out in the
future which, under the law, can be utilized to reopen a
case, will there be any more chance to revive what has
been imposed, to withdraw the death penalty that has
already been imposed?
REP. UMALI. Definitely, because if a death convict
has already been subjected to the punishment and he
will be six-feet under the ground, there will be no more
remedy for that. But then again, the process is there
and the process is tedious and judicious, and that is the
process that is now being considered. There may be
some flaws in the criminal justice system, but then, the
Committee on Justice has deemed it necessary also to
reform the criminal justice system side-by-side with the
reimposition of death penalty, because the Committee
on Justice and our Members felt that if we do not do
something after 11 years of the suspension of the death
penalty, if we do not do something about it, where will
we go? Crimes are being committed left and right, and
the gravity and the types of crimes being committed
are becoming graver and graver. And now, even law
enforcers are emboldened and have been emboldened
to commit these crimes.
So, there has got to be a change in the policy to
somehowso that we can expect change; otherwise,
how can we expect that the conditions will change
after 11 years of hibernation of death penalty if we will
maintain a status quo?
This is one other reason that we would like to put
forward as to why we need to reimpose death penalty.
We need to tweak the present policy enunciated in
this Bill by reimposing death penalty, so that we can
reimpose also the rule of law and the respect of any
citizen of the country to respect the laws of the land
and to respect the rule of law.
At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Cayetano
relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Raneo
Ranie E. Abu.
REP. FORTUN. Mr. Speaker, on the contrary,
this is like a case of a cart ahead of the horse. If there
is really a need to reimpose the death penalty for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
admission of the Supreme Court that 71.77 percent
of the death sentences they reviewed were erroneous
should be considered very seriously by this Congress.
Klarung-klaro po na ang daming pagkakamali at hindi
iyan pagkakamali ng Husgado lang. Nag-umpisa iyan
mula sa law enforcement hanggang sa prosecution,
hanggang umakyat sa Husgado, kaya nagkaloko-loko
ang desisyon.
We have a problematic criminal justice system. But
we commend, of course, the efforts of our Philippine
National Police because despite the fact that there was
no death penalty in the last 10 years, there has been
a significant decrease in the crime rate sa atin pong
bansa.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). With due
respect to the Gentleman, may I remind the one-hour
limit rule, so please wind up your interpellations.
REP. FORTUN. I will now go to my last point, Mr.
Speaker, since I only have a few minutes.
I will just state for the record, Mr. Speaker, that our
country is a signatory to the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties which was signed on May 23, 1969.
And that Treaty says that A treaty which contains no
provision regarding its termination, and which does not
provide for denunciation or withdrawal, is not subject
to denunciation or withdrawal. That is in 1969.
In 1987, the Philippines ratified a new Constitution
under which it is provided that the Philippines renounces
war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land. But, prior to that, Mme.
Speaker, prior to the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines
ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, reinforcing its commitment to promote civil
and political rights including the right to life. On June
24, 2006, R.A. No. 9346 was passed and approved,
entitled An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines. Subsequently, after we
signed the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
18 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
in 1969, ratified the ICCPR in 1986, ratified our present
Constitution in 1987, we signed in February of 2007 the
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition
of death penalty in our jurisdiction. May I read, Mr.
Speaker, the specific provisions:
1. No one within the jurisdiction of a State
Party to the present Protocol shall be executed.
2. Each State Party shall take all necessary
measures to abolish the death penalty within its
jurisdiction.
Article II, Mr. Speaker, of the Protocol, only allows
reservations made at the time of ratification, and the
Philippines did not make any such reservation.
Mr. Speaker, not only that. We have been very actively
reiterating our commitment because after all these
international instruments, mayroon pa pong mga sumunod:
On December 18, 2007, we sponsored, we were
not only in favor, we did not only ratify this, we
sponsored resolution adopted by the General Assembly
on December 18, 2007, the resolution wherein we
affirmed in unequivocal terms the commitment of the
UN towards the abolition of death penalty. After that, in
2008, we also ratified a resolution that was adopted by
the General Assembly. It had the assembly welcoming
the global trend towards the abolition of capital
punishment and also welcoming recommendations
contained in the Secretary Generals report on the
implementation of the 2007 resolution, calling for the
abolition of death penalty.
After that, there was another resolution that we
ratified, on December 21, 2010, the resolution on
the moratorium on the use of a death penalty. And in
2012, there was another resolution that we ratified.
The assembly advanced its call to end the use of death
penalty with the passageby a recorded vote of 111
in favor; 41 against; 34 abstentions, calling for a
moratorium on the death penalty.
Also very recently, Mr. Speaker, there was another
resolution that we ratified, on June 24, 2014, calling
upon all states that have not yet acceded to ratify
the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to already
call for the abolition of the death penalty in their
respective jurisdiction. The most recent, Mr. Speaker,
is a resolution adopted by the General Assembly na
tayo ay hindi lang pabor kung hindi cosponsor pa. Ito
ang resolution na nananawagan ulit para tanggalin na
ang parusa ng kamatayan.
Sunud-sunod po ito na mga commitments natin,
hindi lang po iyong Second Optional Protocol. Marami
pang sumunod after that. There are about six or seven
resolutions that we did not only ratify. In fact, a few of
these resolutions ay sponsor pa po tayo.
I am just reiterating, Mr. Speaker, that these are
international commitments and when we approved,
we ratified these commitments, Mr. Speaker, we were
conscious of the fact that in 1969, we were a signatory
to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that
says that all instruments na wala pong withdrawal and
denunciation ay hindi po subject sa denunciation at
withdrawal.
Thank you, Mme. Speaker, my time is already up.
Thank you, distinguished Sponsor.
REP. UMALI. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, just to
respond to those two points.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Please
proceed, Mr. Sponsor.
REP. UMALI. Just two points, Mr. Speaker, Your
Honor.
Earlier on, he cited a Supreme Court decision and
his view was that this is effectively an indictment of
the reimposition of death penalty which I also cannot
agree to because on the contrary, that decision will also
manifest that the criminal justice system is working. This
is precisely what we were saying that when we reimpose
the death penalty, there will be a long, tedious and
judicious process that a death convict shall go to before
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Thank
you, Mr. Sponsor. May I remind you that you are also
included in the one-hour time limit rule.
REP. UMALI. Yes, may I request for just one
minute, just to finish off.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Just a
minute.
REP. UMALI. That decision also shows that our
criminal justice system is working. On the point of all
of these international treaties, conventions, international
laws that form part of the law of the land, suffice it to
say that this treaty, and all international agreements,
cannot be above our Constitution which is explicit that
Congress is authorized to reimpose death penalty for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Your Honor.
REP. FORTUN. May I also be accorded one
minute to conclude, Mr. Speaker. Just one minute, Mr.
Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Just a
minute. Just a minute.
REP. FORTUN. Just to reiterate the fact, Mr.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 19
Speaker, that based on our discussion, it is very
clear that the death penalty was abolished by the
1987 Constitution and the 1987 Constitution has
an abolitionist perspective on the matter of death
penalty. Also that the mere existence of heinous
crimes is not enough compelling reason for the
reimposition of the death penalty and it has been
established that there are not a few but several
errors in conviction. Also, Mr. Speaker, we cannot
renege on our international commitments on the
abolition of the death penalty.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, distinguished
Sponsor.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Thank you,
Honorable Fortun from the First District of Agusan del
Norte.
The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, I move for the
recognition of the Gentleman from the Party-List
AKBAYAN, the Hon. Tomasito Tom S. Villarin, for
his interpellation of the honorable Sponsor.
I so move, Mr. Speaker.
REP. UMALI. At this juncture, may the Sponsor
also request that Deputy Speaker Castro be recognized
to respond to the interpellation.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Deputy
Speaker Fredenil Fred H. Castro is recognized.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). What is
the pleasure of the Gentleman from the First District
of Albay?
REP. LAGMAN. The Hon. Tom Villarin is ready to
interpellate, but as agreed upon, we will only continue
the debates and the interpellation if there are sufficient
numbers in the House to constitute a quorum. I move
that we adjourn because of the absence of a quorum.
REP. BONDOC. Objection, Mr. Speaker.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The session
is suspended.
It was 6:14 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:14 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The session
is resumed.
REP. BONDOC. We object, Mr. Speaker. A quorum
was established earlier.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Please state
the objection.
REP. BONDOC. There is a presumption of a
quorum, so business must continue, Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. A motion to adjourn is not
debatable.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). According
to precedence on the ruling of the Chair from way
back the Eighth Congress, a motion to adjourn is
not debatable but the motion to adjourn needs the
approval of the majority of the Members of the
plenary; therefore, it is subject to voting.
REP. LAGMAN. Then let us vote.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Let us now
divide the House. Those who are in favor to adjourn
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, before we divide
the House, we should first establish a quorum so that
we could transact
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). We are in
the process of
REP. LAGMAN. It is immaterial whether we had
a quorum previously; but presently, we do not have a
quorum, so let us call the roll.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The Dep.
Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, let me state our
parliamentary status before we vote. There is a motion
to adjourn which you have put to a vote; an aye vote
sustains the adjournment, a nay vote continues our
deliberation.
The Majority seeks your nay, Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). May you
please repeat the questions to be voted upon.
REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, there is a motion
to adjourn which we have objected to; an aye vote
sustains the adjournment, a nay vote allows us to
continue our business, and the Majority seeks a nay
vote.
20 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
VIVA VOCE VOTING
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Those who
are in favor to adjourn, please say aye.
FEW MEMBERS. Aye.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Those who
are not in favor to adjourn, please say nay.
SEVERAL MEMBERS. Nay.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The motion
is lost.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker.
REP. BONDOC. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move
for the
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The Dep.
Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker.
REP. BONDOC. recognition of the Hon. Tom
Villarin,
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker.
REPL BONDOC. for his interpellation of the
Sponsor.
I so move, Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The Rep.
Tom Villarin from Party-List AKBAYAN
REP. LAGMAN. No.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu).
is recognized to interpellate the distinguished
Sponsor, the Deputy Speaker Fredenil Fred H.
Castro.
REP. LAGMAN. I am rising on a point of order.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). May you
please state your point of order, honorable Gentleman
from Albay.
REP. LAGMAN. According to the rules of the
House, if the ayes and nays would not be sufficient to
determine the decision of the House, then, I move that
we divide the House.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). For the
Gentleman from the Second District of Albay,
REP. LAGMAN. First District.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). First
District of Albay, the Presiding Officer, the Speaker
has just heard that the nay vote is the one that got the
votes.
REP. LAGMAN. Precisely, Mr. Speaker. We have
doubts, I have doubts about the preponderance of the
nays over the ayes, that is why, under the rules, I am
moving for a division of the House.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). We already
divided the House, Gentleman from Albay.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
that the rules be read, on this particular matter with
respect to the division of the House.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). You rose
on a point of order. May I please know and please cite
the rule that has been violated or the rule that you have
been pointed out, so that the Presiding Officer will be
guided.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are saying that
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). What
particular provision of our rules of the House?
REP. LAGMAN. the ayes and nays did not
determine the decision of the House. In other words,
we should ascertain whether the House really agreed
to continue with the proceedings. Under the rules, a
motion to divide the House is in order.
REP. DAZA. Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Sorry,
Gentleman from the First District of Albay, the Presiding
Officer heard it that the nay vote won the division of
the House and the Presiding Officer had already ruled
that the nay vote had it.
So, and the parliamentary order now is that
the Presiding Officer had already recognized the
interpellator, Cong. Tom Villarin, from AKBAYAN
Party-List. According to our rules, if the Presiding
Officer had already recognized the interpellator who
is ready to interpellate the Sponsor, unless there
will be another point of order, there should be no
interruption.
REP. LAGMAN. That is precisely the point, Mr.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 21
Speaker. I am rising on a point of order. Pursuant to the
rules of the House, a Member can ask for a division
of the House after the ayes and nays had been taken,
because there is no conclusive presumption that the nays
overwhelmed the ayes in this particular problem.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). I would like
to read Rule XV on Voting, which states:
Section 115. Manner of Voting. The
Speaker shall rise and state the motion or
question that is being put to a vote in clear,
precise and simple language. The Speaker
shall say as many as are in favor, (as the
question may be) say aye. After the
affirmative vote is counted, the Speaker shall
say as many as are opposed, (as the question
may be) say nay.
REP. LAGMAN. So in other words,
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). the
Speaker shall name one Member from each side of the
question, and so on and so forth. The Speaker does not
doubt the result of the voting.
REP. LAGMAN. Well, in that case,
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). I heard that
the nays have it.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, then we shall go
to the subsequent method of voting, which is to divide
the House. And, if it is still not conclusive,
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The rule
REP. LAGMAN. then we will have to count
by tellers and we could also move for nominal voting.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Sorry,
Gentleman, but the rule says that if the Speaker is in
doubt. The Speaker is not in doubt, so the nays have
it. I heard it; the nays have it, so the Speaker says the
motion is lost.
May we proceed now, Majority Leader.
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, ...
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. ...I now invoke Section 116 for
nominal voting. So, let us now determine whether this
motion
REP. BONDOC. Objection, Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. will be supported by one-fifth
of the Members present.
REP. BONDOC. Objection, Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Please,
Dep. Majority Leader.
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The Dep.
Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. BONDOC. We object to that motion, Mr.
Speaker.
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, we support
REP. LAGMAN. What is the reason for the
objection
REP. ATIENZA. the motion.
REP. LAGMAN. when it is very clear under
Section 116 of Rule XV that:
U p o n m o t i o n o f a M e m b e r, d u l y
approved by one-fifth (1/5) of the Members
present, there being a quorum, nominal
voting on any question may be called.
In case of nominal voting, the Secretary
General shall call, in alphabetical order,
the names of the Members who shall state
their vote as their names are called x x x?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The Dep.
Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. LAGMAN. There are two conditions here,
Mr. Speaker.
REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker.
REP. LAGMAN. First, there should be a quorum.
Number two, the motion should be approved by
one-fifth of the Members present, there being a
quorum.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The Dep.
Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, there are preceding
conditions to Section 116, and the Speaker has read
them. It states under Section 115 that:
22 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
The Speaker shall rise and state the motion
or question that is being put to a vote in clear,
precise and simple language. The Speaker shall
say As many as are in favor, (as the question
may be) say aye. After the affirmative vote is
counted, the Speaker shall say as many as are
opposed, (as the question may be) say nay.
If the Speaker doubts the result of the
voting or a motion to divide the House is
carried, the House shall divide.
As the Chair has stated, he is not in doubt of the
result; therefore, there is no need for nominal voting,
Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). According
to our rules,
REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I have the
floor.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The Chair
has already ruled.
REP. LAGMAN. As Section 116 is not dependent
on Section 115...
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). May
I recognize Cong. Tom Villarin of the Party-List
AKBAYAN to interpellate the Sponsor.
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, this Representation
would like to join the discussion, a very important
one.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The Chair
recognizes Tom Villarin.
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). What is
the pleasure of the Gentleman from the BUHAY Party-
List?
REP. ATIENZA. I insist that I be given a chance
to talk.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). What is
the pleasure of the Gentleman from the BUHAY Party-
List?
REP. ATIENZA. The interpretation of the Dep.
Majority Leader of Rule XV, Section 116 is flawed.
Nominal voting is a right as Members of this Congress.
If one-fifth of us should want to explain our vote, we
should be allowed to do so. Bakit po ninyo inaalis iyon
sa ating rules eh nandito po iyan sa libro natin? If one-
fifth agrees with the motion of the Gentleman from
Albay, then we must be allowed to conduct nominal
voting.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Uulitin
ko po, napakaliwanag po ng nasa ating regulasyon,
nasa ating rules: Gagawin lang po natin iyan
kapag duda ang Speaker sa kinalabasan ng resulta
ng botohan. At sinasabi ko po, at ito ang ruling
ng Chair, hindi ho siya nagdududa sa resulta ng
botohan. Ang resulta ho ng botohan ay panalo ang
hindi. Kaya ho tayo ay magpapatuloy ng ating
interpelasyon. Ang nakalagay ho, maliwanag ho
dito.
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, maliwanag din po
itong binabasa ko eh.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Section 115
po, napakaliwanag po dito.
REP. ATIENZA. Wala naman pong nakalagay
dito na kayo lamang ang magde-decide; kami po ang
magde-decide.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Ang
Speaker ho, ang Speaker ho. Ang nakalagay dito, If
the Speaker doubts the result of the voting or a motion
to divide the House is carried, the House shall divide.
Kung duda ho ang Speaker, saka lamang magkakaroon
ng division.
REP. ATIENZA. Hindi po, wala pong Speaker dito.
And sabi, Upon a motion of a Member.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The Chair
has already ruled and only a legal appeal can change
the ruling of the Chair.
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, do not overrule the
right. Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Is
the Gentleman appealing from the ruling of the
Chair?
REP. LAGMAN. No, there is no appeal yet.
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, there is a Member
asking for a nominal voting. So, why does he not ask
those present now? One-fifth among us will allow
nominal voting. Bakit hindi po tayo .
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The
Gentleman is questioning the ruling of the Chair. The
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 17th Congress 1RS v.4 Congressional Record 23
Chair has already ruled that the nays have it. We will
now proceed to the interpellation by Cong. Tom Villarin
of the AKBAYAN Party-List. And I have already
recognized Cong. Tom Villarin for his interpellation
of the distinguished Sponsor, Deputy Speaker Fred
Castro.
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, we are appealing
from the Chairs sense of parliamentary appreciation.
We have rules in the House. Rule XV, Section 116
states that if one-fifth of those present now would want
a nominal voting, the Chair has to give it to us as a
matter of right.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Is
the Gentleman appealing from the ruling of the
Chair?
REP. ATIENZA. No, we are stating the section
which states that we must ask the Members now, Do
you want a nominal voting or not? If one-fifth of the
Members want to, the Chair has to grant that. The
Chair cannot just overrule a provision of the rules of
the House.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The rule
clearly stated that only if the Speaker is in doubt of the
result of the vote
REP. LAGMAN. That is Section 115.
THE DEPUTY SPEKAER (Rep. Abu). will
there be a division of the House. But the Speaker does
not doubt the result of the vote. So we must now proceed
to the interpellation.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, I move for a one-
minute suspension of the session para magkasundo po
tayo dahil hindi po tayo nagkakasundo.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The session
is suspended for one minute.
It was 6:27 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:34 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The session
is resumed.
The Majority Leader is recognized.
REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, thank you.
The parliamentary status is, we are in the period of
sponsorship and debate on a very important measure.
They have listed so many interpellators. We want
to accommodate all of them and we have been very
accommodating. In fact, we have been bending the
rules dahil po iyong mga nasa gallery, mga Sisters, iyan
poSisters, good evening popumunta po sila dito
para makinig ng debate. Kaya nga po iyong mga nandito,
nagtitiyaga maski po hindi na sila interesado dahil alam
na nila iyong boto nila. Iyon ay for the sake of those who
want to have a debate kaya ho we are having a debate. But
our colleagues, gusto po nila na kapag nagsalita sila, dapat
may nakikinig sa kanila na 51 percent of the Members.
It is the right of a Member to listen to the debates
or not, and nobody can force them to listen to the
debates. Kapag magaling po iyong Speaker at maganda
iyong argument niya, puno po ito. Pero kung ang
sinasabi naman niya ay hindi naman interesting o
paulit-ulit, hindi po pwedeng pilitin iyong Member.
Kami po sa Rules ay nagtitiyaga para sa inyo na gustong
mag-interpellate kasi ang nakakarami po dito, ang nagpalista po
ay 50 lang, e 293 po kami dito. Iyong mga 200 at mahigit po ay
hindi na gustong magdebate para ito po ay mapagbotohan na.
Now, because they want to speak, we are
accommodating them, allowing them to speak. But when
they speak, they demand that at least 51 percent should
be present here to speak. Eh hindi na po namin problema
iyon kung walang gustong makinig sa inyo.
If that is our status now, ako po, as the Chairman of
the Committee on Rules, we will now force a vote on the
measure and we will now close the period of debates.
Dahil ano ang mangyayari, Sisters, Brothers? Ang
mangyayari po ay hindi na ho kami makakapag-transact
ng business dahil ikukuwestiyon po nila ang quorum.
Sila nga ho ang gustong mag-adjourn. Ni-recognize na
po ng Presiding Officer iyong susunod na magtatalumpati
at mayroon po namang nakikinig dito, pero iyong ibang
kasama namin po ay gustong itigil na dahil kulang daw
ang nakikinig. Iyong mga Miyembro, pwede naman
silang makinig sa kwarto nila at saka pwede naman
po nilang basahin bukas kung ano ang nangyari
dahil hindi pa naman po nagbobotohan ngayon.
Every day, we have been calling the roll. This
is unprecedented in any Congress. No Congress, on
record, has called the roll every single session day
except this Congress. When we called the roll earlier,
ilan po ang bilang? It was 202. Pero, noong nag-
umpisang magtalumpati iyong gustong magtalumpati
ay natabangan po sila. Hindi naman po sila natutuwa
sa debate. Sila ay nag-uwian o nagpunta sa mga opisina
dahil may ginagawa. But, kami po rito, nagtitiyaga para
mapagbigyan, so we can give everyone a chance and an
opportunity to express their views for or against the matter.
So, Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Committee
on Rules, I will now move to adjourn the session.
But before that, I will now lay on the floor that we will
24 Congressional Record 17th Congress 1RS v.4 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017

meet in the Committee on Rules. And, if these are the
sentimentsI will call a caucus of the majority, and if the
majority says that debates are enough already, then let us
vote on the matter. Maski gusto ko po kayong pagbigyan,
kung ayaw na ng nakararami, e baka mapilitan po
kaming itigil na ang debate dito at pagbotohan na,
tutal alam na po iyong issues. Alam na po iyong issues.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
REP. FARIAS. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I move
to adjourn the session until Monday, February 20, 2017.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
REP. ATIENZA. Objection. I will have a continuous
objection.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abu). The
session is adjourned until four oclock in the afternoon,
February 20, 2017.
It was 6:39 p.m.

Published by the Publication and Editorial Service, Plenary Affairs Bureau

The Congressional Record can be accessed through the Downloads Center of the official website
of the House of Representatives at www.congress.gov.ph
AZB/02162017/1815